I've never read Rand, but today's forgotten word of the day seemed apropos...

Chrematistics: the science of wealth. From the Greek chremata, wealth. -John Ridpath's home reference library, 1898

In short-Aristotle established a difference between economics and chrematistics that would be foundational in medieval thought.[1] For Aristotle, the accumulation of money itself is an unnatural activity that dehumanizes those who practice it. Trade Exchanges, money for goods, and usury creates money from money, but do not produce useful goods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrematistics

I imagine Rand was not a believer in chrematistics.

The bust of Aristotle look like he broke his nose.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

See, this is why the far-right will always win. When faced with uncomfortable truths, logic, and rational disagreements, they will draw a penis jizzing in your mouth.

If only blankfist had been around in the time of Aristotle, we could all still be living in mud huts and worshiping sun gods.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

It should be pointed out that the richest in America and those who benefited hugely from the bailout can't even be found on census data. You have to do A LOT of study to actually find out they exist, it's something like 1% of the top 1%. They have serious influence, and benefit from a crooked system.

Also for the broader point of inequality. The point of the battle against it is because those on the lesser side have been being hammered for following the rules. You work and work for years with the idea that you'll get ahead, and that's taken away from you. This is how the Tea Party came about, their grievances are legitimate before they were sort of taken away from them by more powerful interests.

The point is, democracy suffers hugely when you have inequality. Ancient Greece (Aristotle) had the idea to fix this is by making the society more equal, therefore you wouldn't have the poor using their power of numbers to subvert democracy against the rich. America had a similar problem in the early days, instead of working towards equality, they worked towards stifling democracy. By putting most of the power in the hands of the wealthy Senate, it made sure that democracy wouldn't get out of hand and the rich white guys can keep what they stole.

Look this isn't something that's right or left. The right and the left are together on this, we don't like tyrannical powers trying to control us. A corporation with it's top down infrastructure is the basic definition of tyrannical. Add that to the fact that corporations dictate how our democracy is run, you have a system that isn't functioning and needs to be fixed.

Our Democracy isn't functional, it needs to be taken down and replaced.

Why do you think Direct Democracy is not a good idea? Has there been an example in history where it has turned out worse results than our form of Democracy?

As to the video, it doesn't really matter. Our democracy is fundamentally broken, and it's designed that way. Aristotle and John Adams could see that having a system where the "mob" could rule over the minority constantly wouldn't be a fair system because they just redistribute wealth and harm the rich. However they came to two opposite conclusions, Aristotle decided the answer was to have greater equality. John Adams reasoned that you have to subvert democracy, which is basically where the Rich Ass Senate comes from.

There is no reason why Direct democracy wouldn't work, it at the very least would be better than what we have. An Empire, designed to stifle the voices of it's people and lives for profit today over sustainability tomorrow.

>> ^hpqp:

gorillaman, no it isn't the only one, but an essential one among several.


It's not essential either. It's a good option at the moment, but it could certainly be supplanted by others in a 'digital aristotle' future.

>> ^hpqp:

Very interesting commentary, but there is a significant problem with the conclusion, in that it excludes one of schools' essential functions, namely learning to be a functional part of a human society. A good teacher not only imparts factual knowledge, but provides (in conjunction with the school) a model of social interaction, with its unspoken rules, its ethics, etc etc, all things no amount of Digital Aristotling will ever be able to provide. This model is not always good (see for example the "shut up and listen/follow" model, creating mindless drones incapable of critical thought), and that of course needs to be improved. But children will always need adult humans to show how one (inter)acts in society, and that cannot be done with 50-100 students to one teacher. There has to be the possibility for personal interaction.


School isn't the only place for those things to happen.

Very interesting commentary, but there is a significant problem with the conclusion, in that it excludes one of schools' essential functions, namely learning to be a functional part of a human society. A good teacher not only imparts factual knowledge, but provides (in conjunction with the school) a model of social interaction, with its unspoken rules, its ethics, etc etc, all things no amount of Digital Aristotling will ever be able to provide. This model is not always good (see for example the "shut up and listen/follow" model, creating mindless drones incapable of critical thought), and that of course needs to be improved. But children will always need adult humans to show how one (inter)acts in society, and that cannot be done with 50-100 students to one teacher. There has to be the possibility for personal interaction.

The State will tighten the leash when this gets too popular.

The Aristotle avatar still has to be programmed. Who will do so, Karl Marx or Ayn Rand?

>> ^Fade:

There is very good reason to be patronizing to people who are pretending that they are knowledgable of a subject they clearly haven't the first clue about. It's a public service.
Liars and charlatans need to be mocked and derided.


Then it is just preaching to the choir, as you won't win them over with such a tone. If your efforts aren't to win them over, but rather call them out on lies and deceit then all you need are facts. I just don't think this is going to win anyone over, and if it isn't, then what is it's purpose exactly? I mean, we don't need to ridicule Aristotle for his theory of movement to know that Newtonian or Einsteinian models are superior. Perhaps not everyone can be as soft touch as Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I can't really support other modes of public criticism with conscience.

I'm very happy you liked it. I almost deleted that post because I was afraid the whole thing was too pompous. But I figured, ultimately, who could argue with the sentiment..."Garfield" really was a horrible film.


In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Put a thousand fruit flies in a box and you can watch the entire circle of life, played out in multiple generations, in a matter of days.
Now, stand back far enough to view the entirety of human existence in one box and the objective eye will discern no greater purpose than the fruit fly. We live, we reproduce, we die. All of human evolution and technical advancement bent to the simple purpose of continuing to exist.

We are ultimately seperated from the fruit fly by one thing; a simple question,
"Why?"

The contemplation of our own mortality is undoubtedly the single factor that has inspired us to become more than the sum of our individual lives. The yearning to outlive ourselves, to defy the inherent pointlessness of existence, to deny the emptiness of the void that precedes us and remains, undisturbed, after we're gone. The human defiance of the finity and futility of life drives the greatest achievements of our species.

Humanity, alone among the animals of the earth, has taken the gifts of evolution and harnessed them to scream its answer to the empty cosmos with soul wrenching achievements of art and philosophy. Those creations of mankind that we experience as a feeling, rising up from inside us and overwhelming our minds with a beauty and perfection far greater than ourselves.

The great accomplishments of mankind that elevate the purpose of our existence:
The philosophy of Aristotle
The architecture of Angkor Wat and St. Peter's Basilica
The art and discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci
The grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and the humble beauty of Van Gogh
The feets of engineering; the great wall of china and Apollo moon landing
All the great works of the most inspired among us, who could encapsulate beauty, wonder, humor and tragedy into discrete works of brilliance:

Shakespeare, Sophocles, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Kepler, Gödel, Newton, Hippocrates, Bach, Wagner, Coltrane, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Tesla, Gutenberg, Frank Lloyd Wright...
...and Bill Murray.

Except for his work on Garfield.
That movie was fucking horrible.


My life is better for having read that comment.

In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Put a thousand fruit flies in a box and you can watch the entire circle of life, played out in multiple generations, in a matter of days.
Now, stand back far enough to view the entirety of human existence in one box and the objective eye will discern no greater purpose than the fruit fly. We live, we reproduce, we die. All of human evolution and technical advancement bent to the simple purpose of continuing to exist.

We are ultimately seperated from the fruit fly by one thing; a simple question,
"Why?"

The contemplation of our own mortality is undoubtedly the single factor that has inspired us to become more than the sum of our individual lives. The yearning to outlive ourselves, to defy the inherent pointlessness of existence, to deny the emptiness of the void that precedes us and remains, undisturbed, after we're gone. The human defiance of the finity and futility of life drives the greatest achievements of our species.

Humanity, alone among the animals of the earth, has taken the gifts of evolution and harnessed them to scream its answer to the empty cosmos with soul wrenching achievements of art and philosophy. Those creations of mankind that we experience as a feeling, rising up from inside us and overwhelming our minds with a beauty and perfection far greater than ourselves.

The great accomplishments of mankind that elevate the purpose of our existence:
The philosophy of Aristotle
The architecture of Angkor Wat and St. Peter's Basilica
The art and discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci
The grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and the humble beauty of Van Gogh
The feets of engineering; the great wall of china and Apollo moon landing
All the great works of the most inspired among us, who could encapsulate beauty, wonder, humor and tragedy into discrete works of brilliance:

Shakespeare, Sophocles, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Kepler, Gödel, Newton, Hippocrates, Bach, Wagner, Coltrane, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Tesla, Gutenberg, Frank Lloyd Wright...
...and Bill Murray.

Except for his work on Garfield.
That movie was fucking horrible.


My life is better for having read that comment.