-
Posts
4911 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Xard
-
Sorry, what? Where did I say anything about all-out war? Where's the potential gain in that? And, as for not having any basis, that's pretty funny and it's something I see you do quite often ("string theory is crap, invisible hand is bs... etc"), while you refuse to explain why that is so. Human beings are not "like eagles" simply because we haven't adapted to the environment to become solitary predators. Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups. I got Hobbesian vibes from "On the other hand, we are social animals by need." You can't get much more Hobbesian than that when it comes to socian contracts and formation of society. I've made only two such claims. String theory criticism I base on growing opposition it is getting among scientific circles and invisible hand is bs in the sense that market knows what is best for humans. After all there is little evidence for existence of such invisible hand (even less than for God!) guiding markets for best humanitarian outcome. And then there's the irrationality of it all as taks noted earlier when talking about stocks. Irrationality doesn't go well with guided action As for empathy it is more natural state than nonempathy. There's exceptions to everything of course. But you making behaviourist claim that empathy is merely outcome of upbringing is false. It is closely tied to morality and that is still great mystery for us. And simple explanations like that are very lacking. How come that human mind is quickly deteoriated under circumstances when he lacks connection to other human beings, why loneliness drives so many people mad etc. Socialising is uppermost need of human psyche. If people were group animals only due to survival it would be easy to see modern man - with secured survival - leaving humans far behind. No pets or other such creatures could follow him to his destination either. He'd be utterly alone but with secured survival and very good quality of material aspects of life. He wouldn't need anything at all. Let's also suppose return to society would be harmful for his survival, say there's riots going on in the city and other anarchistic activities. Yet this man would eventually eclipse into madness due to his separation from rest of the humans (nor does he have anything like pet that could work as surrogate). Man being social animal is "inbuilt" aspect of either our brain or mind, it doesn't matter much which one's. Point stays. That's simply the environment counterbalancing man's base instincts to some degree. It's not two opposed parts of our nature headbutting. See my example of man in perfect yet lonely "bliss". One can be loner (I'm somewhat) but solipstic...nope. Specify. Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well. This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature". Ahh, the great nature of society debate in philosophy, is society merely collection of wills of individuals or is it "more". I have no time or capacity to ponder on this very deebly, at least not now. However "Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well" this is just shaky and bad application of simplified darwinism in situation where it doesn't work. Reminds me of theory that altruism is explained by showing off to neighbours and thereby getting more sex made by some "clever" evolutionary psychologist/biologist *facepalm* The glee with science magazines jump onto these crude musings is to me really disheartening. After few months they're utterly forgotten as criticism gets heavier and more staggering. Plus there's next Pet Theory of Morality just made up! It is very similar to almost monthly reports on "oooooohh, solving the origin of life is nearly done!" type of news one sees. Neither types has any kind of strong basis behind them and are almost uniformally contradictory. Perhaps science will uncover mystery of morality in coming decades, but explanatory power must go far beyond simple and crude musings based on kinds of "caveman stories"* and darwinism *I read really great hidden ridicule on these theories once. It really showcased how goddamn easy it is to make your own "once upon a time man with a club saw" types of theories that at first glance seem very plausible (e.g one you used) but under scrutiny fall apart. No, that's sheepish behaviour. Under extreme stress, human beings tend to save their own skin. That's why people get trampled in fires, crushed to death in evacuations, etc. Instinct taking over, instinct overruling cultural, moral, and other superfluous (at the time) concerns. Actully study showcases that statistically most of people just start to blindly follow any sort of leader under such situation, attaching to any sort of figure that might know what to do (one guy starts to run south and 75 % follows just like that)
-
so Brandon lied? :'(
-
wow, i laughed out loud, literally, at this one. ooookkkkkaaaaay. taks Yup, yup and yup Psyche is not either or deal in any matter
-
sounds harsh but if that's only way to trigger caring for others in this day's world it is worth it *shrug*
-
immaterial. financial matters are ultimately what is used to survive. no one person can do everything, therefore he needs to obtain the services and products of others. the most equitable way to do this is through trade. since not everyone has something the other needs, or wants, we have money. suddenly it's a financial thing. Uhh, if we reduce everything to survival we can reduce financials away too, as those are not something one needs for survival. since when does any consensus mean anything? the rest of the world has spent its life in poverty, subjugated to the very thing you claim will save them. of course they advocate a third way, it is easy to advocate taking from others to serve their own needs. instead, we end up with more of the same. Massing the wealth for few has always been part of capitalism and not something that can be avoided. Hell, whole libertarian western world holds ridiculously big chunk of world's resources. No amount of free market will fix that inequality and without big (and never going to happen) redistribution of wealth it won't change. But oh, that would be inequal way of dealing with people! yes, indeed. keynesian philosophies don't work, and there aren't many sane economists that believe in him. Funny your quote regarded policies in the 40s, not today. I'm not "keynesian", but he is big name. There are many big names and within today's economy your extremely radical capitalism is still in minority.
-
I can and do. Still, you should read the article because it is very neutral with rebuttals and counter rebuttals etc. besides, it saves me from the pain of having to write some of those arguments again No, as Finland has always been "capitalistic" country. However neoliberalism's influence on the other hand has not been so big in the past. The great value vacuum the materialistic capitalistic culture/spirit of era imposes with heavy attention on "efficiency" and "economical growth" as most important things in the world... yes, that indeed is very negative influence that shows more and more with each passing year
-
I don't glorify anything
-
sorry, but still not true, and history beyond 100 years ago hardly counts. when communities were small, socialism was required. not so anymore. Apart from stone age these communities were hardly "small". And why would history beyond 100 years ago hardly count? Nature of man hasn't changed a lot. And it's not case of what is required. ah yes, china as an example, dictatorship, communism. moving towards free market and capitalism... yeah, good example. examples of collectivist societies is not proof that we are as such by nature, it is merely proof that some are capable of asserting their will over others. Again, primary focus being culture and psyche. And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes? However to truly understand human nature you must see how it works under varying situations and especially how it was around the magical era of 50,000 BC and some tens of thousands of years forward, when man's psyche was as "pure" as it could be, free of great cultural influences. And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep. And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour. communism/collectivism is an immaterial difference. it is, at best, sematic. hopefully, no. but either way, you need to shed your programming. really, you're smart enough, i don't understand why you can't do it. taks And this is still where you go wrong. Man is individualistic AND collectivistic, it isn't either or situation
-
I agree with that. On the other hand, we are social animals by need. That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived. However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false. Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.
-
I could also add every single pre-european South American culture on that list. i could care less where you think you stand politically, if you favor any collectivist mechanism, you are inevitably promoting socialism, even if you don't think you are. the mythical "third way" is nothing more than an incremental step towards such an end. saying you're individualistic, yet promoting such a system is either hypocritical or delusional. in either case, you ain't individualistic. I feel stupid for having to spell this out: There's a lot more to individualism than merely financial matters. And I'll never advocate goverment driven communist economy. You're in odds with me and majority of other humans on this planet when it comes to existence and viability of "the third way". Some sort of third way is what drives all democracies. And if there exists no Third Way (still "lolwut" inducing thinking) that's just one more point towards "collectivism". oh yes, no doubt few sane economists, or people in general, give a rat's arse about what keynes says. again, give me a definition of morality, a true definition, that favors one person over another. Indeed? using big names, and understanding what their messages mean are two totally different concepts. you don't understand their message. yes, btw, both keynes and chomsky are/were socialists. sorry if you can't see that, but it is true. Chomsky was; Keynes wasn't unless we're using taksish speech I'll write more personal answers after I unearthe my book on social philosophy (I must check few terms) but for beginners Criticism of capitalism would be good starting point, especially parts Democracy, Economical Freedom, Imperialism and Human Right violations, Religious Criticism (esp. Christian socialism etc. because Christianity is base of whole western values) and last but not least and Noam Chomsky's great critiques that got its very own section.
-
no, this is utter nonsense. we are individualistic by nature. not sure where you are getting these concepts. again, you're either making things up, or just plain lacking in understanding of human nature. I comment on this now: READ PSYCHOLOGY or hell, read history, anthropology or biology Humans are collective animals. There's no way around that. Ever heard of S-O-C-I-E-T-Y for example? Ever looked into mind of early or Middle Age man? Ever heard of empathy or self-sacrifice for collective? Ever heard of far east countries like "China" or "Japan"? Man is not communistic by nature (which is the reason why communism fails), because people are individuals and need something to call their own. That's basic psychological need. Communism also presumes best out of men which ultimately leads to its downfall. However mind of men are also heavily collectivistic which is basically foundation of our whole culture; it is something without with our civilizations wouldn't exist. Humans are not like eagles, humans are like apes or ants or any other hivelike lifeform. Society is not born out of social contract; Aristoteles was right all along. Man is social animal by their very essence. Again there wouldn't be any problem with these parts of your views if you'd give up the ridiculous and artificial "us and them" setting of capitalism and "collectivism". This leads to: collectivism = socialism --> world already is socialist and shall be so evermore"
-
my god, you are deluded. bull****. um, socialism IS collectivist, so is communist, fascist, marxist, etc. there is no meaningful difference. they are all variations of the same. tell me, do any of you read anything other than pro-collectivist rants? really, what the heck are they teaching you eurosnobs? taks I don't read any "pro-collectivist rants", I've been a lot more "right" person politically and my background is completely middle class and academic. In recent year I've become much more radical so to speak, but not communist or anything like that. My problems with capitalism stems forefront from morals and values of life it promotes and with "socialism" from the levelling everyone to same mass of "workers". I'm very individualistic so group mentality is hard for me. However, despite my personality I do recognize the fact human beings are collectivistic by their nature. It is unsepatarable part of the human nature. We're pack animals to use (way too) crude and unsophisticated words biologist might use. It is psychological fact and once you deny reality of this collectivism you're fighting a losing fight. Collectivism is one of the keys to ever so mysterious morals (which science haven't explained at all, despite some incredibly flimsy theories by evolutionary psychologists) which in turn might be the most defining aspect of mankind. You can't take collectivism out of human mind. ergo: if collectivism = socialism World already is socialist and shall be so evermore “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes See? I too can play with Big Names to get support for my "sociopolitical views" John Maynard Keynes was *not* socialist btw; unless we use your good/bad dischotomy Or Noam Chomsky perhaps?
-
no, the truth. read some von mises. there is no "middle ground." you're either a capitalist or a socialist (collectivist, actually). Congrats taks, by using this line of reasoning you forever lost your cause Mankind is collectivistic by its very nature. Not so much as in communism, but nevertheless collectivistic which I guess for you means socialist.
-
Jesus Christ, couldn't your world be any more black and white? What the hell do you even mean with socialism? It must be very different from meaning rest of the world gives to it
-
uhh, not my point... I was simply contributing to Volo vs Nick debate.
-
never mind me, I just leave these here...
-
fluid dynamics are totally overrated Huzzah! Rally onwards my proletarian brethen!
-
The Beatles - Maxwell's Silver Hammer Joan was quizzical; Studies pataphysical Science in the home. Late nights all alone with a test tube. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Maxwell Edison, majoring in medicine, Calls her on the phone. "Can I take you out to the pictures, Joa, oa, oa, oan?" But as she's getting ready to go, A knock comes on the door. Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer Came down UPON her head. Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer Made sure that she was dead. ^_^
-
prior to this he was
-
what's not in your pants?
-
I should add that for good(?) and bad free market is amoral system so that's nullified too besides, viewing taxes as stealing is one of the weirdest moral povs I've yet to see - I even understand better "property is theft" which is something that was pouted by one of the core anarchist philosophers s sometime in 18th or 19th century I wonder if taks has ever even given thought to, say, John Rawl's theories of social justice ...whoops, it has the word social in it... so I guess no
-
this thread has taken turns from utterly obscure to somewhat funny and now with recent dev comments it found its way to land of Awesomeness *salute*
-
Yeah. The US is the only superpower. I mean, some record, eh? They obviously don't know what they're doing. And these comments always come from Euro-know-it-alls. Oh well, I guess some things never change. Well, you're one too No one excepts world's only superpower to play completely fair, but somewhere along the line things got really twisted. Hmm, maybe even as far as 1950's because the great fight against communism is pretty much reason for all non-ethic modern day conflicts. Iran, Iraq, whole South America etc. And of course Vietnam war. Still, observing american camp vs USSR camp it's not hard thing to see the "good" guys won. This is probably the single most intelligent comment in the thread so far. The US prez is the US prez is the US prez. Don't kid yourselves, folks. I'm not sure what people are actually excepting on that front I don't know about "evil conspirators", but Ch
-
Pretty much *all* finnish weapons are hunting rifles and like.
-
"DRM" and "D&D 4th Edition In Games" Thread
Xard replied to Blarghagh's topic in Computer and Console
I thought you were around when that happened? Anyway, if you are referring to the thread to close the forum, no. It was a "global notice"-sticky by Feargus which appeared as an overhead, that was taken down when the storm passed. well, I was very infrequent visitor in early days and after geristering I pretty much forgot about it. Most of the time I didn't even remember I had registered in here at all So I wasn't around the great ****storm. for the last part; too bad :/