The Philosophy Discussion Forum

If we are proposing to define "bird" and you give me yours, and I perceive as a definition for a duck, and you then ask me for my definition of "bird" I see we have a problem. I see we first have to find out why you don't recognize birds that are not ducks. Find out what you DO want to call those. THEN when I give you my definition of "bird" I can make it clear to you that I am NOT defining what you call "bird" but instead what you call bird PLUS "these other things you call something else".

Maybe "birds that can fly" is better than "duck" in this example. That is closer to "importance on the world stage".

The point is before giving you my "bird" definition (which will NOT include "able to fly") I think I need to find out what you call those things that tom me are clearly birds but cannot fly. Do you even recognize their existence? If not, you would find my definition odd for leaving out such an obvious characteristic of "birds".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 11:34 pm If we are proposing to define "bird" and you give me yours, and I perceive as a definition for a duck, and you then ask me for my definition of "bird" I see we have a problem.

I don't. All you have to do is give your definition, and any misunderstanding can be cleared up.

Now, stop being irrationally difficult, Mike. Just give your definition, and let's move on.

the tragic bird has no spatula

much harder to flip it

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 12:23 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 11:34 pm If we are proposing to define "bird" and you give me yours, and I perceive as a definition for a duck, and you then ask me for my definition of "bird" I see we have a problem.

I don't. All you have to do is give your definition, and any misunderstanding can be cleared up.

If only that were so. The misunderstanding would not easily if ever get cleared up. You are mistaking a definition of set S with a definition of what makes set SS (a subset of S) different from other subsets of S. You're not looking at "what is in common for members of S" but at "what is different between some of them".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 5:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 12:23 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 11:34 pm If we are proposing to define "bird" and you give me yours, and I perceive as a definition for a duck, and you then ask me for my definition of "bird" I see we have a problem.

I don't. All you have to do is give your definition, and any misunderstanding can be cleared up.

If only that were so.

And it is. Your wish can be granted.

You do have a definition. I'm certain you do, because you can't even know what a relevant example of Socialism is, unless you have a tacit definition.

So just make your tacit definition plain. Let's have it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 1:05 pm @IC

A definition of "socialism":

Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for greater equality and wealth distribution. It prioritizes social welfare over private profit, often featuring government planning to meet basic needs like education and healthcare, rather than relying solely on market forces.

This isn't whatever Mike believes. If it were, he would surely have given it.

Yes, Gary, I find that definition fair. It might not be quite complete or quite forthcoming, but it's adequate for a first try. I've mentioned two key elements Marx himself identified: first, the elimination of private property, which Marx said was the perfect summary of what Socialism was about. Then I also mentioned the collectivization of the means of production, which he harps on later. Both are key elements.

What do you believe Marx meant by "private property" as he seems to distinguish it from personal possessions.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 11:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 1:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 1:05 pm @IC

A definition of "socialism":

This isn't whatever Mike believes. If it were, he would surely have given it.

Yes, Gary, I find that definition fair. It might not be quite complete or quite forthcoming, but it's adequate for a first try. I've mentioned two key elements Marx himself identified: first, the elimination of private property, which Marx said was the perfect summary of what Socialism was about. Then I also mentioned the collectivization of the means of production, which he harps on later. Both are key elements.

What do you believe Marx meant by "private property" as he seems to distinguish it from personal possessions.

My comments earlier were about the basics of Socialism itself, rather than about the parsing Marx. Mike claimed my definition wasn't good enough, but then he failed to have any at all, himself. So as it turns out, he really wasn't in any position to know.

But to answer your question, Marx was always hammering on about the big stuff, like "the means of production." He seemed to still think he could leave the small stuff out of his ideology; but subsequent Socialists, the Neo-Marxists, if you will, have disagreed with him about that. They claim, in the famous aphorism, "the personal IS the political." But then, that's exactly the sort of thing all totalitarian collectivists end up believing, because they can't leave any little thing outside the all-swallowing ideology they serve.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 12:42 am
But to answer your question, Marx was always hammering on about the big stuff, like "the means of production." He seemed to still think he could leave the small stuff out of his ideology; but subsequent Socialists, the Neo-Marxists, if you will, have disagreed with him about that. They claim, in the famous aphorism, "the personal IS the political."

That aphorism is not about possessions. It is about how issues that would have once been considered private actually reflect power and social issues. Issues around who does the chores around the house, how people think about their attractiveness level, domestic violence and other issues thought once to be private were now seen as the results of political issues and positions. And in communist countries there was a distinction in practice long after Marx of people being allowed to have personal belonging. There may well be some communes Marxist or religious or whatever that eliminate personal possessions ownership.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 11:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 12:42 am
But to answer your question, Marx was always hammering on about the big stuff, like "the means of production." He seemed to still think he could leave the small stuff out of his ideology; but subsequent Socialists, the Neo-Marxists, if you will, have disagreed with him about that. They claim, in the famous aphorism, "the personal IS the political."

That aphorism is not about possessions. It is about how issues that would have once been considered private actually reflect power and social issues. Issues around who does the chores around the house, how people think about their attractiveness level, domestic violence and other issues thought once to be private were now seen as the results of political issues and positions. And in communist countries there was a distinction in practice long after Marx of people being allowed to have personal belonging. There may well be some communes Marxist or religious or whatever that eliminate personal possessions ownership.

No, you're quite right -- it doesn't stop at mere possessions. This is yet further evidence of the all-swallowing nature of Marxism. It will not leave ANYTHING alone, not even one's neighbour relations, one's family, one's home, one's sex life, one's child-rearing, even one's personal thoughts and choices. It meddles everywhere, judges everywhere, seeks to control everywhere... "The personal is the political" is its declaration that it is allowed to meddle in everything, and nothing can any longer be declared strictly "personal."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 1:27 pm No, you're quite right -- it doesn't stop at mere possessions.

No, it isn't about possessions.

This is yet further evidence of the all-swallowing nature of Marxism. It will not leave ANYTHING alone, not even one's neighbour relations, one's family, one's home, one's sex life, one's child-rearing, even one's personal thoughts and choices. It meddles everywhere, judges everywhere, seeks to control everywhere... "The personal is the political" is its declaration that it is allowed to meddle in everything, and nothing can any longer be declared strictly "personal."

Still not understanding it. Political does not = possession. It is saying that what happens privately often is the result of politics and not isolated personal choices alone.

If you're now feeling the urge to extol the horrors of communism, you're missing the point, and you're preaching to the choir. You misundertood what that aphorism means.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 1:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 1:27 pm No, you're quite right -- it doesn't stop at mere possessions.

No, it isn't about possessions.

Yeah, it is...it's about everything.

Socialism is inherently rapacious. It doesn't ever stop, because it's a utopian, ideological project. It knows no "enough."

The various conservative beliefs are different. They tend to be premised on the supposition that there are no perfectable things. Human beings are flawed, history may be imperfect but it's also given us a lot, we don't want to lose the benefits of the past by destroying them with careless social experimentation, people have a right to make different choices, rights are personal not collective, government should be minimal...those are all conservative ideas, and they bespeak the fact that conservatisms know that on this earth, all political solutions will be compromises with reality. Their success will be partial, uneven, but still desirable, because conservatives do not believe in utopia.

But Socialism and Marxism are decidely utopian, and don't accept any reality as necessary, or any roadblocks as acceptable. From Hegel to today, the same theme is proclaimed by its theorists: nothing can be allowed NOT to become a territory of Socialist reform. Thus, as some of their most fervent accolytes have put it, it calls for "relentless self-criticism" of the person, and in society, "continuous revolution." It never ends. There can no longer be any place left for "private" things, but everything ends up becoming the target of collectivism.

Of course, the minute Socialism stops its aspiration to seize more control, it loses. Ultimately, it cannot allow any freedom, or any ownership or any privacy, because those signal an insufficiency or out-of-bounds for Socialist reform. And Socialism is supposed to be the total solution to humanization, and the ideal answer to every question, not some limited, conservative kind of project that stops half way and allows space for things like ownership, or capital, or family structure or parental authority, or personal choice.

That is what "the personal is the political" really entails. It ultimately means, "nothing is ever allowed to be personal." If you don't know that, you've not read the Critical Theorists. They want everything, all the time. And they think the explanation for the continual failures of their utopian project is that it has not yet been able to swallow everything -- for it is only when all opposition is gone, they think, that Socialism will finally pay off.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 3:39 pm Yeah, it is...it's about everything.

This is one of the reasons I do not respect you. Even a tiny bit of research would confirm that you are misinterpreting that aphorism. But this simple act of integrity seems beyond you. And the funny thing is that conservatives have always thought the personal was political. And they are not wrong either. And if you think this hasn't led to legislation, well, I suggest going back to the books. But the aphorism is not the personal is legislation, even if some people may want it to cover both.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2026 3:39 pm Yeah, it is...it's about everything.

This is one of the reasons I do not respect you. Even a tiny bit of research would confirm that you are misinterpreting that aphorism.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Or rather, you're at least 50 years out of date. You think the old 2nd Wave Feminist slogan, when it was targeted to "patriarchy in the home" is what Critical Theorists today mean by it. But they don't. They mean everything. And all you have to do is read their stuff to know it.

"A tiny bit of research" will do it, indeed.