Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!

What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)

If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?

Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)

Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?

WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

"The Old Republic, players will explore an age thousands of years before the rise of Darth Vader"

and yet most the technology looks exactly the same , its possible technology could reach a Plato but i doubt the visual design of things would stay the same for so long.

@hpqp I think the Iliad is a perfect reference to how the Greeks vied the role of the Gods in war. To your end, though, people like Plato actually spoke against the Gods and called them "bad influences", and old wife's tails. Mainly, what I speak to is the any difference, no matter how small, can be used as a rallying cry. A Sparta might say "Let's go kill some Athenan bastards!" Reading history from that time is really hard, as the historians were less about telling "facts" and more about telling stories, about convoying the feeling of the day. In that, from my readings of the ancient historians, it was also a lingering justification.

Edit: O ya, and I forgot to mention, Socrates was put to death for "Corrupting the youth from the teachings of the Gods". That has to count for something!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

Poor thing. Somebody deserves a chicken-stick.

@Opus_Moderandi Agreed. I think one thing that needs to be considered is that the Boston Tea Party happened after all other legal recourse had been taken to try to get Britain to not only repeal the tea tax but also get representation in Parliament for the colonies. In other words, they had exhausted all other possible options. Civil disobedience is great for when you've exhausted all other possible options.

What options did these people exhaust? Did they petition to get the law changed? Did they write their representatives in government to demand it be changed? Did they try to raise awareness (through leaflet distribution, billboards, commercials, web campaigns, etc.) of the problem? Did they offer to run for election themselves to try to get the law changed?

No. They said "F*ck all that, it sounds like too much work. I'll just take a few hours to inconvenience everyone who wants to reflect quietly at the memorial and pretend I'm a hero fighting for justice."

@dystopianfuturetoday Slacktivism. Never heard that word until today, but it is the most awesome and apt description of what is happening here.

When civil disobedience is your first choice for reforming laws you disagree with, you've lost all perspective of how democracy and freedom work. When you think your rights or freedom are being violated because you cannot dance everywhere and anywhere, other people be damned, you've lost all perspective on what the words "rights" and "freedom" mean.

EDIT: Spelled dystopianfuturetoday's name wrong

EDIT 2: For a great read about the philosophy of civil disobedience (including a rationale for why civil disobedience should be a means of last resort) see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

I sure hope the cat's name is "Plato"

@shinyblurry It's impossible to argue with your biblical rhetoric, but I'll try. If you can help me by answering my questions.

How do you know your god is the right one if you rely on faith?

Your analogy suggests that the evidence for god is all around us, what evidence, specifically, are you pointing to?

How do you know you're pleasing god so that the evidence will be forthcoming as you suggest?

Furthermore, many of these arguments have already taken place and argued brilliantly by Socrates, see: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/library/plato/the-trial-and-death-of-socrates-2.php

How do you know what is the will of god if the very nature of god and his decisions is mysterious and beyond our understanding?

The bible is flawed horrendously before you go to that easy answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&playnext=1&list=PL80294485C9139857

Educate yourself so that we may discuss.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

Troll, but I still this type of "thinking" still used. You know like Bill O'Reilly. If I can't answer question "x" then I award God with a gold star...

BTW, I don't think the term "atheism" is ubiquitously used in the Atheist community as "isms" decry a sense of belief. Were as being an Atheist means you believe in simply nothing, making atheism most likely to be used as the dictionary says as it deals with more than one person and also as religious folk use it in an attempt to unjustly malign it as a religion as well. Even the dictionary tries to paint it in the light as a disbelief, but is more a disbelief in the sense that "Plato had the right ideas and theories". Like Bill O'Reilly, except he probably hated Plato and loved Revelations (BTW, I don't think they knew what that term really meant, I never found even one revelation in it)...

Atheist is even described by some dictionaries as a disbelief in a God, or a belief that there is none. The truth for many Atheists is that we've never found evidence (and usually quite the opposite) to follow any God as they have no realistic claim on reality. Same with FSM, Car Bears, Pink Unicorns, and that usually summons a critical thinking stage that everyone seems to miss that unique to Atheists. We check up on ideas and teachings, all the while giving a rating to it either as probable or total bullshit. Problem is that we find bullshit in that direction every-time we look.

C'est la vie.

(response to blanco) I'm not trying to editorialize. His link to politics was tenuous and confused. He wasn't coherent in the way that Joe Stack or Tim McVeigh were, which leads me to believe this wasn't calculated to have some kind of meaningful effect on the world. I can't imagine this person could even function in society or keep a job, unless he is just really really really bad at expressing himself in print.

Although he used some of the terminology of the right, he didn't seem to have a firm grasp of these politics. If you look at his favorite books, they come from vastly different parts of the ideological spectrum - Hitler, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Plato and Orwell. Left right and libertarian extremism are all represented here along with dystopic science fiction fearful of that kind of extremism. If he weren't so clearly insane, I'd think this were some kind of dark trolling.

>> ^gorillaman:
Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Actually it was more of a "we're tired of power being concentrated in the hands of a few, unaccountable, self-centered, self-important people, let's disperse that power amongst everyone!"

That form of democracy still has yet to be tried, but from where I sit, the closer a society's government hews to that principle, the better off the society.

>> ^gorillaman:
Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Awesome argument for abolishing markets and capitalism...you know, the system that rewards amoral selfish idiots who succeed in ripping others off. For abolishing democracy, not so much.

>> ^gorillaman:
So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

So your bold new plan for the future...is Aristocracy.

Tell me, do you think yourself a philosopher-king, an artisan, or an auxiliary? No faux modesty here, please.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I'll admit to sometimes using a loose definition of fascism for rhetorical purpose, but I flatter myself I understand political theory well enough not to need wikipedia's help this time.

I want an advance to post-democratic times.

Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Democracy isn't the ultimate development of government, as you seem to believe, it's its ultimate collapse.

So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

You have never lived in a society with a constitution. Not if you live in the US you haven't. Your hated plutocrats long since overcame that last remnant of wisdom left by founders who presumably believed they wouldn't be needed so many years later. Imagine if the constitution were living thinkers rather than a dead relic; an active body to oppose corruption rather than a rotting, passive corpse waiting pathetically to fall to dust.

Are you a coward? Do you want to better society or cling to the sense of virtue your own corporate media narrators have fed you?

The truth is no one informs my political thought. It crawls implacably from the sludgy depths of hatred I've cultivated for the world in which I live.