Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:30 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:30 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:05 pm

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.

It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.

I agree. There has never been a society without a ruling elite.

And so there never should be?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:30 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:30 pm
It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.

I agree. There has never been a society without a ruling elite.

And so there never should be?

I think it is more that there never could be.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:19 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:30 pm I agree. There has never been a society without a ruling elite.

And so there never should be?

I think it is more that there never could be.

Why?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:13 pm I hate hierarchy, yet I love excellence, how does your logic explain that?

Irrationality? Inconsistency? One or the other.

If you like quality, you must also like hierarchy. If you think you don't then you don't love quality either, because you don't want anything to rise above the lowest common denominator.

Hierarchy: better learn to love it.

So it's not going to be, as H. suggests, just "a matter of the majority doing all the work and a minority being in charge of them," (though it would be that, in Socialism, because it puts big government -- the most inept and useless -- in charge of everybody.)

There is no argument that private enterprise is far more efficient than governments at managing the means of production. Not only that, those who the government put in charge of state controlled industry are far more likely to be unmotivated, and also corrupt.

True dat.

It's going to be a matter of the minority doing everything really advantageous for society, and a majority riding off their coat tails or merely following their lead.

The relationship should be much more symbiotic, and far less parasitic.

"Should" is a moral word in this context, of course. If you were speaking merely of the mechanical or probabilistic "should," (as in, "Putting the air filter back in should keep the motor clean"), then you'd be obviously wrong...because relationship does not automatically lead to symbiosis, and besides, symbiosis and parasitism are both mere natural relations, one as "good" as the other, so far as nature is concerned. (She's not actually concerned.)

There's no reason intrinsic to a merely accidental universe that it "should" be anything other than it is. So you're idealizing a world in which no such ideals have any place. They're just fantasies, and nobody is obligated to fantasies.

The ones in charge always take more than their fair share.

Well, the government always does, anyway. Sometimes individuals do better.

Leaders and followers, in every area of life.

Yes, those in charge do like to see themselves as leaders, don't they? I have always worked for other people; they paid me and I did what they required in return. I didn't follow them anywhere. Same with our political "leaders". They try to run the country, usually end up making a hash of it, and we sack them, and then it all goes round again. We don't follow them anywhere.[/quote]
Well, that's certainly the case in the UK and US, and I daresay in more places than not. Well, except in the totalitarian Socialist places, like N. Korea, China and Cuba, where there's never any chance of "sacking" any of the leaders at all.

But that's a great argument for minimal government. Keep the political pigs out of the public trough, as much as we can, and fire them if they misbehave. I agree. That's how democracy ought to work.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:24 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:19 pm

I think it is more that there never could be.

Why?

Like I said before; human nature.
There will always be those who want to be in charge, and I suppose someone has to be in charge if we want to live in modern societies. Humans are a hierarchical species, it's not something we can do much about. Those higher up in the hierarchy believe they deserve more than those below them, and they are in a position to take it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:24 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:19 pm

I think it is more that there never could be.

Why?

Like I said before; human nature.
There will always be those who want to be in charge, and I suppose someone has to be in charge if we want to live in modern societies. Humans are a hierarchical species, it's not something we can do much about. Those higher up in the hierarchy believe they deserve more than those below them, and they are in a position to take it.

And like I said before: In any man's life there are multiple opportunities to lead, follow, or go it alone. It's unnatural a man be cast in one role for a lifetime.

The State (any iteration, with any accompanying managed economy and culture) does exactly this kind of casting.

Ain't a single good reason why a cold, hard, hierarchy ought be in place.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:31 pm
If you like quality, you must also like hierarchy. If you think you don't then you don't love quality either, because you don't want anything to rise above the lowest common denominator.

There is no must about it, I am telling you what is the case. I do not like hierarchy, and I have a problem with authority; I simply do not like being told what to do. I very much like quality, whether it be the result of hierarchical authority or individualism.

"Should" is a moral word in this context, of course.

As morality is a very human quality, I think it reasonable that I, as a human, consider the matter in the context of it.

If you were speaking merely of the mechanical or probabilistic "should," (as in, "Putting the air filter back in should keep the motor clean"), then you'd be obviously wrong...because relationship does not automatically lead to symbiosis, and besides, symbiosis and parasitism are both mere natural relations, one as "good" as the other, so far as nature is concerned. (She's not actually concerned.)

I agree, nature is impartial, but I am not representing nature's veiw on the matter, rather my own. Symbiosis is good for both parties, parasitism is good for one, and bad for the other.

There's no reason intrinsic to a merely accidental universe that it "should" be anything other than it is. So you're idealizing a world in which no such ideals have any place. They're just fantasies, and nobody is obligated to fantasies.

I agree, the universe does not give a toss, it is merely I -in this instance- who has a view on the matter. I am the originator and keeper of any ideals I might hold, they are not stored in some hypothetical vault in the world at large, or indeed up in Heaven. I sometimes wonder if you are human at all, IC, or just one of God's robots.

Well, except in the totalitarian Socialist places, like N. Korea, China and Cuba, where there's never any chance of "sacking" any of the leaders at all.

Well those places take authority and hierarchy to extremes, which all the more justifies my distaste for it.

Authority and hierarchy might be a necessary element in our social make up, but having a recognition of that doesn't make me feel compelled to like it. Perhaps I wouldn't be so hostile to it if some of those in more privileged positions within the hierarchy didn't greedily abuse their advantage.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:57 pm Wikipedia says that no definitive Marxist theory exists.

That's what Marxists always say...that Marxism, real Marxism, hasn't been tried yet.

The Russians tried it, and collapsed their economy, after killing millions of their own people.

The Chinese did far worse.

The Cambodians, North Koreans, Zimbabweans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians, East Germans, the Congolese, the Nicaraguans...and on and on and on...all kinds of people from all over the world tried it...with the same effects every time.

Were all those folks just far too stupid to know what "real Marxism" is? Just too many dumb Chinese, or Russians, too many foolish Congolese or East Germans...all stupid people, yeah?

Or is it that "Real Marxism" is actually a fictive defense intended to allow today's Marxists to say, "We're not as stupid as those ignorant savages, and if WE ruled Marxism, it would work?"

Which way do you think it is....hmmmmmm...

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:15 pm I do not like hierarchy, and I have a problem with authority; I simply do not like being told what to do. I very much like quality, whether it be the result of hierarchical authority or individualism.

Authority is only one dimension of hierarchy...and for the record, I agree with you about arbitrary authorities.

But hierarchy is primarily an index not of authority but of competence. In other words, people tend to rise above others in a given field because they're just better at something.

Nobody will pay to hear me sing. But they might pay to hear Adele. She's higher than me in the music hierarchy. And good for her.

Nobody will pay me to play left field for the Dodgers. Lots of players are better than me. Good for them.

Nobody will pay me to repair their teeth. But my dentist is really good at that, and knows how to do it. He put in the time to learn. Good for him.

In every area, hierarchy is a fact of the existence of quality, of skill, of competence, of daring and risk-taking, of diligence, of creativity, of intellect, and many, many other things.

You don't like any of that? Then you're working contrary to your own professed love of quality.

Symbiosis is good for both parties, parasitism is good for one, and bad for the other.

Yep. And nature does both, with no interest in which it is.

Well, except in the totalitarian Socialist places, like N. Korea, China and Cuba, where there's never any chance of "sacking" any of the leaders at all.

Well those places take authority and hierarchy to extremes, which all the more justifies my distaste for it.

They're also Socialist. It's no trick to discover the link there. Give all the power to government, and you get totalitarianism.

Perhaps I wouldn't be so hostile to it if some of those in more privileged positions within the hierarchy didn't greedily abuse their advantage.

Well, of course; and I agree. But hierarchy isn't mostly about power. It can be -- but it usually isn't.

It's about competence, in the majority of situations in life.

Adele is not tyrannizing me, nor is anybody on the Dodgers. They're just better at what people value in that realm.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:18 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:57 pm Wikipedia says that no definitive Marxist theory exists.

That's what Marxists always say...that Marxism, real Marxism, hasn't been tried yet.

The Russians tried it, and collapsed their economy, after killing millions of their own people.

I think it was Leninism that the Russians started off with. I am neither defending nor criticising Marxism here, I am just saying you can't judge it by what the Russians distorted it into.

Actually, I find it incredible that we are still talking about Marxism today. We live in a very different world to the one that Marx was reacting to. I think it is the hard right who are keeping the term alive.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:27 pm

You don't like any of that? Then you're working contrary to your own professed love of quality.

I don't actually see the link between hierarchy and quality that you keep mentiong.

“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.” G. I. Gurdjieff

Harbal

I didn't write that; I wrote that it seems the most desireable aim. I am far from content. I have to be doing or learning something all the time, or I get agitated; I find it impossible to just sit still and do nothing. It is a real struggle for me to fill my days with something interesting. I'm bored out of my mind, and that is why I look on those who are content with envy.

I have the highest regard for these rare ones Jacob Needleman describes in this short paragraph from his book: "Lost Christianity"
"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?"

It does exist, Nick, it exists very strongly in me. Truth is what matters above all else. Discovering the truth isn't always easy; it is quite often impossible, but identifying what isn't the truth is nowhere near as hard. Human beings are so dishonest, Nick, both with each other and with themselves. Many people, I'm sure, would much rather believe a lie that makes them happy than know an unwanted truth. I, too, want to be happy, but not at the cost of accepting falseness. That's why I have no time for religion; it isn't the truth.

But what is truth and how does one distinguish it from self justification? How does one through self knowledge acquire the impartiality to witness the truth in themselves rather than drifting into self justification and imagining themselves?

A seeker of truth must be dedicated to consciously and impartially Knowing Thyself or having the experience of oneself. If we are instead dedicated to imagining oneself through fears or imagined self esteem, our opinions of ourself, it makes the search for truth impossible.

I agree with you as not having the patience for a moral religion that just tells you what to do. But can you accept that there are two paths to truth: revelation and the rational. There are degrees of religion: secular religion based on human indoctrination and religion based on personal experience. What if a person has an AHA moment where they experience a revelation? Can they then accept we are capable of both? This doesn’t mean blind belief but rather having an open mind which witnesses an absurd world and seeks to make sense out of the logic responsible for it within the context of the revelation they experienced?

I, also, admire seekers of truth, but I don't always admire what they find and try to pass off as truth. I don't have any special talent for finding the truth, but at least I am unlikely to fall prey to charlatans; mainly because the harder someone tries to convince me of something, the less I tend to believe it.

Very true. How to recognize and avoid the charlatans? If a person sincerely desires to experience the truth of the human condition, it requires a sense of inner taste. Charlatans establish followers easy to join and difficult to leave. A legit path is difficult to join and easy to leave

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:32 pm I am neither defending nor criticising Marxism here, I am just saying you can't judge it by what the Russians distorted it into.

Or the Chinese? Or the Cubans? Or the North Koreans...or every other single polity in the world that has claimed to be Marxist, ever?

Actually, I find it incredible that we are still talking about Marxism today. We live in a very different world to the one that Marx was reacting to. I think it is the hard right who are keeping the term alive.

That's pretty funny, actually.

No, it's the hard Left. They never went away, as they never do...they just claimed the last debacle, whatever it was, "wasn't real Marxism," and then rolled ahead.

The Wokies are all Marxists. The majority of the academics in the Humanities are Marxists. The majority of teacher-trainers are Marxists. So is the Left wing of the Democrats, like "The Pack" and Bernie. They're certainly not the "hard right."

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:39 pm I don't actually see the link between hierarchy and quality that you keep mentiong.

You don't think Adele sings better than I do?

Thank you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:43 pm

But what is truth and how does one distinguish it from self justification? How does one through self knowledge acquire the impartiality to witness the truth in themselves rather than drifting into self justification and imagining themselves?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as absolute truth, and if there is I'm not sure we are able to know or understand it. It seems to me that the best we can strive for is our own conditional truth. And if you were to ask me what I mean by that, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to tell you. I hope you find yours, Nick, I honestly do.