[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52165758]
Absolutely not. Socialists in particular should read it so they can understand and identify the traps they could potentially fall into. I find it's more useful/informative to read something wrong than to read something excellent. Because you can then identify dangerous and bad thoughts and understand [I]why[/I] it's bad.
It's like the story of the Buddha, when he was surrounded in a utopian walled garden where everything was perfect, he didn't learn anything. But once he was exposed to the faults and reality of the world, only then did he start on the journey of enlightenment. You have to understand or be exposed the bad to understand the good.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's more that a lot of it is just flat out-dated and wrong. And unless one has some foreknowledge of modern economics they might not recognize where and why, regarding things like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, LTV, etc..
Though this applies to other economics writings like Adam Smith and whatnot too I suppose. I guess all one has to keep in mind when reading something like that is that while they're important foundational material of where our society came from one should be wary regarding the actual details and trying to apply them/make arguments.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52164847]I don't think this account isn't entirely an accurate account of classical liberals in and of themselves. "Classical liberalism" is a retroactively created term describing a very specific set of beliefs that some "liberals" at the time held. I find it to be much too narrow of a description of a very diverse range of thought within that span of time.
There's many "classical liberals" that were downright socialists. And at the very least a huge chunk of it is not incompatible with "social liberalism."
Your reading list is pretty alright tho except for Critique of Pure Reason. There is a looot of prerequisite knowledge/reading before you can actually get through Critique of Pure Reason. It's also not really a work of political philosophy anyways.
The communist manifesto is also more of just a propaganda pamphlet than something that'll get you into really understanding socialist philosophy. Hell I remember reading it in high school and coming out with really no more knowledge than before I read it.
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/Ego-His-Own-Individual-Philosophy/dp/048644581X[/URL]
here you go my dude. Left and right are fucking spooks.
For real though don't just try to find whatever position someone tells you is the bestest. Just begin diving into political philosophy. I like kant and rousseau but you should probably go like this:
machiavelli (0812974239)-> hobbes (0872201775)-> john locke (0521357306) -> rousseau (1603846735).
The things in parentheses are ISBNs, just stick them into amazon or any book search engine. I basically linked either their "important" works or compilations. You can go find more later if you like someone specifically, but reading these four I think would give you a good foundation of western political philosophy.
From then you can move onto more specific things such as marx (tho i dont think even socialists should really read much marx but that's my unpopular opinion,) evola if you don't like brown people and women (hah, well-poisoning,) stirner if you just give up and want to be a sociopath, milton friedman if you actually want to make people's lives better, etc..[/QUOTE]
If you haven't noticed, I am trying to separate personality traits from ideologies. I am trying to demonstrate on various posts the difference between abusive behaviors and non abusive.
not a fan of eastern philosophy
their writing is mostly just laozi
[QUOTE=Chonch;51878491]Does a single objective truth exist, or is it all relative?[/QUOTE]
If objective truth doesn't exist, then the statement "objective truth does not exist" isn't objective truth
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51871977]and of course Alder's razor "If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate"[/QUOTE]
newton's flaming laser sword
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-yvPu6W4AIR81N.png[/t]
Philosophy exists within everyone
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52135021]I think you're neglecting the most important part of Hobbes's ideas, and that's that beastial/tribal man is man's natural state. But man also has the unique capacity to produce/errect a culture/society or extended tribe which allows man to transcend those lower behaviors. And in that capacity i think he's right.
Of course, Rousseau thought it was the other way around. That man's nature is naturally benign, and that society and our artificial constructs corrupt and deform our values, and is the origin of pathology or behavior based suffering.
And frankly the reason Rousseau hasn't been forgotten is because he does touch on the truth. And his and Hobbes's works are two counterparts of the philosiphy about states/societies etc. You need both to fully understand the true and deep nature of man's social behaviors. [/quote]
Yeah I regret not putting this on my thingy, the idea that society "civilises" vs "corrupts" man is pretty huge and interesting.
As you say it is probably somewhere in between. Was going to write some stuff about it but its sorta hard, chimps live in societies so perhaps our natural state is to live in society. I suppose what they (Roussau + Hobbes) was more modern society (10000bc onwards with more sedentary communities, agriculture supporting an upper class of priests, queens and scribes).
A big thing I like to think about (I've got no formal training with philosophy so the way I describe this seems childlike) is small groups vs big groups, in a small intimate group you have a vested interest in others success, small groups are more naturally egalitarian. Bigger groups tend to lose some of this, if this could be applied to their theories might help differentiate between "the natural state" and "the unnatural state"
[quote]
Also i wouldn't read marx as anything but an exersise in how [I]not[/I] to philosophize. The communist manifesto is a perfect example of things that sound good at the surface level, but as soon as you peel back a layer or two show it's true nature as ridiculous and untenable, with no link to the actual nature of people, which is what philosophy is supposed to represent/articulate in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I think you're too quick to dismiss Marx. Probably out of fear that people might misconstrue you as supporting all of his ideas.
He did more than just write the communist manifesto.
His theories on Alienation are particularly interesting (and I think roughly on point, at least for his time)
Consider for the sake of analogy 2 chair makers, one before a industrialised capitalist world (Marx's lens) and one after/within.
The first chair maker is an idealised carpenter. He makes the whole chair, has much agency in its production and the decisions made during its design. If he wants more money he can choose to spend more time making chairs, if he is doing well he can perhaps make less chairs and spend his free time how he wises. I called the carpenter idealised since this paints an unrealistically optimistic picture of their life, realistically they would still be a tenant and, at the time, they would likely have been a member of a guild. (this is after all still a capitalist setting just pre industrial revolution).
The key points about the carpenter chair maker is he enjoys more agency and because he had a hand in making the product from start to finish he will feel greater accomplishment and more fulfillment from his job. (this effect has been observed by behavioural economist Dan Ariely - very interesting guy!!) The carpenter is also more free. The Carpenter also enjoys more control over their life and income since they can differentiate themselves from competition in several different ways, they can make nicer chairs, they can make more chairs, they can make cheaper chairs, they can seek to establish a brand for themselves (the chairs they personally make and considered better chairs)
Then consider the second chair maker, living in an industrialised capitalist world. Rather than being a carpenter he feeds wood into a machine and ensures it doesn't jam, he is a worker. Rather than making the whole chair and seeing it take shape, he repeatedly makes 1 individual part, say spindles for the back. It is less fulfilling and he has less freedom in making the spindles (the machine does most of the work).
He works a salary so extra work is likely to go unrewarded, if he doesn't meet targets he will probably lose his job. He has less control over his income.
The competition is the biggest part here. Rather than competing with other chair makers he is competing with other workers who feed wood into a machine. This has several facets.
The machine takes less skill to operate than the actual carving - so the worker is more replaceable and since the worker has no agency over the quality or price of the product the worker can either compete by making more chairs or working for less.
Since there isn't much variability in the speed a worker can work (the speed of the machine) - 2 workers might work at very similar speeds. The workers main form of competition is to work for less.
This creates conflict amongst the workers - they are in competition with each other for what they need to survive, this also creates conflict between the workers and the factory owner (the class conflict) the factory owner seeks to maximise profits, so to cut costs, so to pay workers less which handily the workers are willing to do because its one of the only ways they can compete.
This has the effect, in the industrialised capitalist world, of turning labour into a commodity. The person ceases to be of value, they are a good to be bought and sold. Their price is decided by supply and demand - the machine takes less skill to operate, so supply is higher, so cost of labour is lower.
______________________
The worker is alienated from their product (they no longer get the fulfillment from seeing the thing they made)
The worker is alienated from the process of making the product (they have no agency and less power over decisions made for the product)
The worker is alienated from the other workers (and the factory owner)
Humans need agency and connection to what they're doing. If something [b]feels[/b] pointless it becomes a far less fulfilling and far more exhausting task. If you take away that connection and agency and provide just the basic needs then people will be unhappy. A point on basic needs, I mean like food and shelter, in his day food and shelter weren't guaranteed you had to work and to work you had to be willing to do that dehumanising bullshit for as little as possible. Thankfully today we have welfare.
Now in Marx's day, through his lens, this was relevant. The question is whether its as relevant today. I am my own means of production, I can make a website, I can afford to host it I have the skills to make it. I'm neither the worker nor the factory owner and I can choose to have full control over what I'm making. I don't suffer from this alienation. Many do though. So to dismiss his ideas entirely, even if you don't agree is doing yourself a disservice.
Feel free to criticise the solutions he had for the problems though, if that's what you're into.
A note for the future, increased automation will bring these problems back at an increasing sale. At some point an AI will be able to take my job at which point I become expendable and I'll join the ever growing pool of workers who's only means of competition is working for less, fighting over jobs which simply don't exist anymore. A more egalitarian distribution of wealth is at that point, inevitable - else the consumers won't have the disposable income to consume and the system will fail. If the workers are alienated and left starving and angry they will see the AI/automation as their enemy and will sabotage it. Automation should be (as you said in aux pics) celebrated but if people feel alienated they'll see it as a detriment rather than a boon.
now is on the toilet shitting on/in me bosses time
[QUOTE=Strontboer;52218191]now is on the toilet shitting on/in me bosses time[/QUOTE]
Ｒ　Ａ　Ｄ　Ｉ　Ｃ　Ａ　Ｌ　　Ｆ　Ｒ　Ｅ　Ｅ　Ｄ　Ｏ　Ｍ　
[QUOTE=Strontboer;52218191]now is on the toilet shitting on/in me bosses time[/QUOTE]
ah the great philosophical question: "is it morally right to shit on your boss' time, or do they owe you that time for the shit they give you?"
depends on the size of the organisation in my opinion. generally the larger, the more justified one feels in taking from it.
imo it depends on the duration of the shit session. If its a quick plop then ur ite but if you spend 45 minutes strangling the chudd in between reading the week old new paper left on the side then it's not so clear.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52231095]imo it depends on the duration of the shit session. If its a quick plop then ur ite but if you spend 45 minutes strangling the chudd in between reading the week old new paper left on the side then it's not so clear.[/QUOTE]
what if theres no better work to be doing? or if you've got like 100 hours of unpaid overtime?
Guys i recommend checking out this site it's really pretty damn cool
[URL="https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/"]https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/[/URL]
Just started listening to plato's republic after only picking up breadcrumbs of philosophy in things like latin and ethics class
It's really wonderful
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
