The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Immanuel Kant is a son of a bitch

1246

Posts

  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    I have read The Communist Manifesto cover to cover. Does that count as "reading Marx" for your purposes?

    Actually, no, since the CM is probably the worst explanation of the philosophy Marx and Engels advocated. Marx scholarship is a pretty broad field. If you want to make sweeping statements about his philosophy, reading the equivalent of Cliff's Notes isn't a great way to back up your statements.

    Nietzsche187a.jpg

    Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't say I was some kind of Marx Scholar or some shit.
    Callius wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    I have read The Communist Manifesto cover to cover. Does that count as "reading Marx" for your purposes?



    It may have been not-boring for the time, but I just had such a hard time slogging through it. And now I barely remember what it said, but I remember that I felt it was a bunch of crap. I'd love to reread it so I know why I think that, but goddamn it's boring as shit.
    You would really like Tom Paine, actually. It's very much classic liberal stuff.

    As for reading the Communist Manifesto "cover to cover" you would clearly know that he did not advocate a strong central government. In fact, the point of Marxism was that the dialectic would bring us to ideal communism which is otherwise known as Anarchism.

    The strong central state came with Leninism and the Vanguard of the Proletariat, which was in responce to Bernstein(sp)s critique of the dialectic as a faulty framework.

    I know that he didn't say "we need the state to take the form of a dictator" in the book.

    The point of my statement is that what he wrote in the book is fucking retarded and can even be shown to be self-contradictory (with minimal interpretation). However, if he knew that people would follow it and might bring him in as some sort of "administrator" to make sure they're doing their communism right, he could've basically been a totally rockin' despot, and in that way the seemingly moronic ideas that he wrote were actually just a ploy, and a brilliant one, to give himself an easy life.

    Defender on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Can't. That's really the crux of Marxism. His philosophy revolutionized the way we understand the world by introducing historical materialism. If you want to understand things like Christianity, capitalism, or totalitarian states, you have to have an understanding of the economics of the time.

    Shut up I was trying to discuss a system of person-to-person interactions for a minute instead of discussing an overall economic scheme.

    Defender on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Sounds like it's time for a Rousseau vs. Hobbes knock-down-drag-out.

    I'm betting one got cuddles and the other one got 40 lashes before bedtime.

    sarukun on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited March 2007
    TFS how can you say "nietzsche was right" in one post and then turn around and say that "all people are inherently good"

    that is pretty much contra nietzsche, hook line and sinker

    anyway, can anyone that knows wittgenstein tell me whether i should go through the hassle of learning some symbolic logic to try and read the tractatus now or should i just wait until i do it at uni?

    bongi on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Sounds like it's time for a Rousseau vs. Hobbes knock-down-drag-out.
    Hobbes was a faggot

    I know of three Hobbesses.


    Two are definitely not faggots.


    I forgot pretty much everything about the third one.

    sarukun on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    sarukun wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Sounds like it's time for a Rousseau vs. Hobbes knock-down-drag-out.
    Hobbes was a faggot

    I know of three Hobbesses.


    Two are definitely not faggots.


    I forgot pretty much everything about the third one.
    Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature guy


    That's the guy I forgot pretty much everything about.


    So I guess he's fair game.

    sarukun on
  • SeriouslySeriously Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Man, I am so glad I'm not the only one that reacted with revulsion when confronted with the idea that intentions matter more than consequences.

    I hate Kant. So. Hard.


    I hate Nietzsche too, but that's more of a knee-jerk reaction. I should probably read more of his stuff.


    But then, I treasure my ignorance.

    Hurm.

    Seriously on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I could care less where people bought their shoes, electronics, clothes, and other luxuries like that

    however: education, health care, oil, the auto-mobile industry, housing, and basic foodstuffs need to be subsidised to the point of near-total government control

    therefore people will not get fucked in the ass for just existing!

    TFS, why do you hate freedom? Do you know how bad a job governments do of managing things? Do you understand that the private sector, which actually has to compete in the marketplace, will always outperform a bureaucracy with no incentive to do a better job?

    Defender on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    ideal Marxist society is wherein the state fades into the backround because the people are the state

    But who's actually going to be the state? The guy who works in the factory? No, because he's got a long shift to pull and then he's fucking tired and wants to spend a few hours with his kids and go to sleep. He doesn't have the time or knowledge for that shit. Someone actually has to make those decisions, and whoever it is gets the power to control society's resources and determine shit like how many cars get made this year and where they get sent.

    Not that any of this matters, because that kind of economy is bound to fall apart anyway. Why work hard if you don't get anything for it?
    You work for a house, a car, and the other things the state provides you

    Look it's not like the state falls into the background within 10 or 20 years, it's more of a 200~300 year process

    And the society evolves farther and farther, and the "state" gets weaker and weaker, to the point where people are able to handle themselves in a manner that there is no need for a government, because they are it ok

    This sounds really awesome and will never, ever, ever, work.
    It's a very, very long process

    think the society in Star Trek

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Let's have an ethical system where people basically operate under the idea that you should just basically be nice to other people. You know, treat other people the way you'd want them to treat you. Now, if we can just found a system like that and then spread it to the world, it would pretty much solve every social problem; everyone would step back, think, and then do the "nice" thing.
    So it's been 2000 years and that system has gotten all around the world and is insanely popular; did it work? Why or why not? Short answer, 30 points.
    No! Because environmental factors make people the way they are. At their core, people are good! However, since parents can be assholes, therefore kids are assholes, and other kids are assholes as well, so the niceness at the core gets fucked up/

    So you think an infant child raised by wolves would be good, because it's their core as a human?

    Good behaviors are as easily learned as bad behaviors. At their core, people are people, not good or bad.

    Hunter on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • WeaverWeaver Breakfast Witch Hashus BrowniusRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    SE++ 148 viewing

    Weaver on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Can't. That's really the crux of Marxism. His philosophy revolutionized the way we understand the world by introducing historical materialism. If you want to understand things like Christianity, capitalism, or totalitarian states, you have to have an understanding of the economics of the time.

    Shut up I was trying to discuss a system of person-to-person interactions for a minute instead of discussing an overall economic scheme.

    What kind of crazy world do you live in where person-to-person interactions aren't based upon economics? The economies of wealth are only a part of economy; economy is all about power. And human interaction is all about trading power.

    zenpotato on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • WeaverWeaver Breakfast Witch Hashus BrowniusRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Man sure would be nice to have an achievable goal that humanity could work torwards other than material wealth or influencing the american idol vote.

    Weaver on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Can't. That's really the crux of Marxism. His philosophy revolutionized the way we understand the world by introducing historical materialism. If you want to understand things like Christianity, capitalism, or totalitarian states, you have to have an understanding of the economics of the time.

    Shut up I was trying to discuss a system of person-to-person interactions for a minute instead of discussing an overall economic scheme.

    What kind of crazy world do you live in where person-to-person interactions aren't based upon economics? The economies of wealth are only a part of economy; economy is all about power. And human interaction is all about trading power.

    You fail, only because you used an "all" statement. Any one example of human interaction that is not about trading power negates your entire point because of one word. Tsk tsk.

    Hunter on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The Tableau Blanche thing is John Locke.

    zenpotato on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hume I do actually remember, and he was full of a lot of shit.


    Totally full of shit, I couldn't say, because I only read enough of his work to get an A in that course, but tthe whole "reality is what you believe" thing is infuriating and stupid.

    sarukun on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hunter wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Can't. That's really the crux of Marxism. His philosophy revolutionized the way we understand the world by introducing historical materialism. If you want to understand things like Christianity, capitalism, or totalitarian states, you have to have an understanding of the economics of the time.

    Shut up I was trying to discuss a system of person-to-person interactions for a minute instead of discussing an overall economic scheme.

    What kind of crazy world do you live in where person-to-person interactions aren't based upon economics? The economies of wealth are only a part of economy; economy is all about power. And human interaction is all about trading power.

    You fail, only because you used an "all" statement. Any one example of human interaction that is not about trading power negates your entire point because of one word. Tsk tsk.

    While the all does make it a stronger statement than I probably intended, the onus is on you to point out one such situation.

    Served.

    zenpotato on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hunter wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    ideal Marxist society is wherein the state fades into the backround because the people are the state

    But who's actually going to be the state? The guy who works in the factory? No, because he's got a long shift to pull and then he's fucking tired and wants to spend a few hours with his kids and go to sleep. He doesn't have the time or knowledge for that shit. Someone actually has to make those decisions, and whoever it is gets the power to control society's resources and determine shit like how many cars get made this year and where they get sent.

    Not that any of this matters, because that kind of economy is bound to fall apart anyway. Why work hard if you don't get anything for it?
    You work for a house, a car, and the other things the state provides you

    Look it's not like the state falls into the background within 10 or 20 years, it's more of a 200~300 year process

    And the society evolves farther and farther, and the "state" gets weaker and weaker, to the point where people are able to handle themselves in a manner that there is no need for a government, because they are it ok

    This sounds really awesome and will never, ever, ever, work.
    It's a very, very long process

    think the society in Star Trek

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Let's have an ethical system where people basically operate under the idea that you should just basically be nice to other people. You know, treat other people the way you'd want them to treat you. Now, if we can just found a system like that and then spread it to the world, it would pretty much solve every social problem; everyone would step back, think, and then do the "nice" thing.
    So it's been 2000 years and that system has gotten all around the world and is insanely popular; did it work? Why or why not? Short answer, 30 points.
    No! Because environmental factors make people the way they are. At their core, people are good! However, since parents can be assholes, therefore kids are assholes, and other kids are assholes as well, so the niceness at the core gets fucked up/

    So you think an infant child raised by wolves would be good, because it's their core as a human?

    Good behaviors are as easily learned as bad behaviors. At their core, people are people, not good or bad.
    This is correct, I was going to go back and reword my post but then PA suddenly died on me

    The whole "everybody is born neutral" thing is Dave Hume, right

    I believe he's one of those thinkers, yes.

    It explains the variations in the nature vs. nurture argument, where a bad person can come from a good environment and vice versa.

    Hunter on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    sarukun wrote: »
    Hume I do actually remember, and he was full of a lot of shit.


    Totally full of shit, I couldn't say, because I only read enough of his work to get an A in that course, but tthe whole "reality is what you believe" thing is infuriating and stupid.

    It's also almost impossible to disprove. And, ironically enough, trying to get beyond Hume is the basis for Kant's metaphysics. We've come mysteriously back on topic.

    zenpotato on
  • WeaverWeaver Breakfast Witch Hashus BrowniusRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I was hoping to get involved in some discussion here but I can't really see an argument going on.

    It just seems like a whole lot of fluff talk.

    Weaver on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Hey I have an idea. Forget economics for a minute.

    Can't. That's really the crux of Marxism. His philosophy revolutionized the way we understand the world by introducing historical materialism. If you want to understand things like Christianity, capitalism, or totalitarian states, you have to have an understanding of the economics of the time.

    Shut up I was trying to discuss a system of person-to-person interactions for a minute instead of discussing an overall economic scheme.

    What kind of crazy world do you live in where person-to-person interactions aren't based upon economics? The economies of wealth are only a part of economy; economy is all about power. And human interaction is all about trading power.

    You fail, only because you used an "all" statement. Any one example of human interaction that is not about trading power negates your entire point because of one word. Tsk tsk.

    While the all does make it a stronger statement than I probably intended, the onus is on you to point out one such situation.

    Served.

    The interaction we are having right now has nothing to do about power, simply because over the internet neither of us have any influence over the over person due to anonymity. Neither of us has power to begin with, let alone a chance to gain power over the other.

    Hunter on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    sarukun wrote: »
    Hume I do actually remember, and he was full of a lot of shit.


    Totally full of shit, I couldn't say, because I only read enough of his work to get an A in that course, but tthe whole "reality is what you believe" thing is infuriating and stupid.

    Well, shit, man. What you perceive as blue might not be the same blue I perceive, so who says reality can't be the same way? I love this kind of philosophy/

    It is boring and meaningless. Meaningful reality is what a significant majority agree on.

    sarukun on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    nietzsch.jpg

    All praise the Mustache!

    zenpotato on
  • WeaverWeaver Breakfast Witch Hashus BrowniusRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I sat and had dinner and drinks with NotASenator last night, in which we talked about many thing for a good many hours.

    In the end, we parted as friends and equals. There was no talk of financial stability or wealth as a point of superiority. There were no efforts to establish an alpha-male.

    People can just be people dude.

    Weaver on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    I could care less where people bought their shoes, electronics, clothes, and other luxuries like that

    however: education, health care, oil, the auto-mobile industry, housing, and basic foodstuffs need to be subsidised to the point of near-total government control

    therefore people will not get fucked in the ass for just existing!

    TFS, why do you hate freedom? Do you know how bad a job governments do of managing things? Do you understand that the private sector, which actually has to compete in the marketplace, will always outperform a bureaucracy with no incentive to do a better job?
    Freedom is neat! But the concept of "freer the market, freer the people" is absolute bunk!

    I'm not backing unregulated capitalism, because things like Standard Oil expose the flaws in that system very clearly. However, having the government control anything that they don't absolutely have to is a terrible, terrible idea. You are basically asking them to rule over you and taking away all of your own power when you do that. And if you have no power, you will be dominated and enslaved or killed. That's how it works.

    Defender on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hunter wrote: »

    The interaction we are having right now has nothing to do about power, simply because over the internet neither of us have any influence over the over person due to anonymity. Neither of us has power to begin with, let alone a chance to gain power over the other.

    Sure it does. Our posts influence our standing in the PA community, our reputations, and things like that. We're not anonymous; we just aren't using real names. There's a difference.

    If there was really nothing to be economically gained, why would we even be posting here? Even idle entertainment is a form of economics.

    zenpotato on
  • WeaverWeaver Breakfast Witch Hashus BrowniusRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hey TFS rememebr when I outlined my plan for a socialist state in which a majority of the market remained open and there were levels of checks and balances built into every level of government as well as government and private controlled industry?

    that was awesome and I should have saved it to .txt.

    Weaver on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    zenpotato wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »

    The interaction we are having right now has nothing to do about power, simply because over the internet neither of us have any influence over the over person due to anonymity. Neither of us has power to begin with, let alone a chance to gain power over the other.

    Sure it does. Our posts influence our standing in the PA community, our reputations, and things like that. We're not anonymous; we just aren't using real names. There's a difference.

    If there was really nothing to be economically gained, why would we even be posting here? Even idle entertainment is a form of economics.

    For the stimulating intellectual discourse?

    sarukun on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Weaver wrote: »
    I sat and had dinner and drinks with NotASenator last night, in which we talked about many thing for a good many hours.

    In the end, we parted as friends and equals. There was no talk of financial stability or wealth as a point of superiority. There were no efforts to establish an alpha-male.

    People can just be people dude.

    People can come out equal in an economic situation; it doesn't all have to be about gaining an upper hand. The division of labor means everyone comes out ahead mathematically. When two equals trade their social wealth with each other, the same thing can happen. You were both enriched by spending time with one another. It's one of those win-win economic situations.

    zenpotato on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    No, I've paid 3.75 a gallon for gasoline before.

    sarukun on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited March 2007
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    I'm not backing unregulated capitalism, because things like Standard Oil expose the flaws in that system very clearly. However, having the government control anything that they don't absolutely have to is a terrible, terrible idea. You are basically asking them to rule over you and taking away all of your own power when you do that. And if you have no power, you will be dominated and enslaved or killed. That's how it works.

    How exactly am I empowered by a system that is dominated by corporations purchasing influence with their "free speech" dollars? Slavery to a corporate system seems remarkably like fascism to me.

    zenpotato on
  • zenpotatozenpotato Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    sarukun wrote: »

    For the stimulating intellectual discourse?

    On the off-chance that you're not being sarcastic, yeah, that enriches you.

    And if you are, it still enriches you by making you feel superior to the host of douchebags that you perceive.

    zenpotato on
Sign In or Register to comment.