GENIUS FORUMS

ChochemV2 wrote:I don't think a separate class would work. Religious institutions are given free reign because people want it to be so while most people wouldn't understand what a philosopher does. If you add some state funded philosopher exception it would probably take on a more "scientist" form in such a way that the state would demand results so a philosopher could maintain their welfare status. Sure, you could BS a few papers a year but does anyone here really want another form of institutionalized philosophy?

Not only that but it gives the government the ability to just cut you off, to censor any philosopher who says something it doesn't like much like it tries, and succeeds, to do with the NEA. People don't understand art so they don't want any of their money to go towards funding it and as a result we have a pitifully minuscule arts budget.

We are well past the days where the independently wealthy and royalty support philosophy and the arts and government, especially our government, is run by the masses who largely don't understand philosophy and art.

the independantly wealthy can and do support artists and thinkers that they like, that's the beauty of capitalism.

Jason wrote:I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, just throwing around a few ideas.

The worth of your actions shouldn't be measured solely by what people are willing to pay for them.

Would it be more ethical to live off welfare and develop yourself philosophically, or be a full-time hairdresser and mindless consumer?

Is it not possible that just the statement made by actively and openly choosing unemployment based on principle, has much potential worth to society?

The unemployed aren't the ones who are "stealing" from people's taxes, it is the coercive arm of the government like police, courts and prisons who dominate people into compliance and/or punishment.

Voting implies agreement with the validity of the system, and consent to be represented by the government. How could theft be said to originate from such an agreement?

yes we have the police, courts and prisons to keep criminals and dangerous people away from us and to live as safely as possible.

Who's going to measure who is philosophically inclined than being lazy? Also, a philosopher can work and still do philosophy, I believe Socrates did this as well, he wasn't a lousy sophist who charged for his thinking.

DHodges wrote:

vicdan wrote:

DHodges wrote:Taxation is theft. It's not optional.

No, it's a part of our social contract.

I don't really buy "social contract" theories, although I must say I don't have a well-formulated alternative; really just a general feeling that there is something bogus about the whole idea of the social contract.

A contract implies negotiation between parties. This "contract" is already existing at the time of my birth, and my consent is merely implied and assumed; I do not actively consent to it. (I might even argue that I am brainwashed into accepting it.)

There is also the tacit assumption that the government has some moral legitimacy to it, and is not formed coercively. While that is theoretically possible, as far as I know all actual governments were formed under some level of violence and opposition (usually by overthrowing some earlier form). So the "consent" is manufactured by force.

The "social contract" also seems to rest on some assumption about a "state of nature" in the absence of such a contract. I have a vague feeling that the actual state of nature before the existence of government... well, it didn't really exist. Tribes always had chiefs. A pack of wolves has an alpha. I have a sense that there is kind of a desire to morally justify what is, in fact, a kind of nearly instinctual behavior and need for authority.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have a coherent theory here, just a feeling that the "social contract" is kind of a fig leaf covering some bits of society that are actually based on dominance and violence, or the threat of it.

Indeed! Those tribes with chiefs, and how violent and coercive they were! Travelling a few miles, conquering that tribe, killing and pillaging and raping, and so on and so on, warring tribes here and there, and so on and so on, gang-warfare, collectivist nomadic warfare, and so on and so on, I much prefer the Republic thank you.

Faust13 wrote:the problem with work is that it does stop you from thinking, but not necessarily because it takes up all your hours which it usually doesn't, but because it puts you into a mentality.

Since most people work, being at work puts people in an environment that reflects what a lot of other people are experiencing, and often puts people in touch with more people, and people of a different sort, than they would interact with otherwise. In these ways, work could put a philosopher in touch with parts of reality, especially interpersonal reality, that might otherwise not be seen.
.

vicdan wrote:Alas, history doesn't support this supposition. I can't think of any major figure in human history who produced something of great value while forcing others to support their indolence. Greek philosophers generally didn't make others pay for their upkeep. Buddha and Jesus and Lao Tze and Confucius didn't force others to support their indolence.

A few corrections:

Stories of Buddha, Lao Tze and Jesus are not usually considered history. But the few elements that have some form of general consensus paint a picture of them being supported by charity of others. Did they make them pay, ask or just waited patiently for an offer? I dunno but certainly they didn't seem to have a job.

The Greek used slaves, another very successful game strategy by the way! Certainly they were forcing others to toil!

By the way, just curious: how many examples from history would you accept before letting it support my supposition?

People who create, create. They don't wallow in indolence and demand that others support this sloth with the sweat of their brow. They often convince others that supporting them is worthwhile, with their very creation itself; but such support is voluntary. Those great ones delivered.

Yeah, yeah, sweaty brows. My gosh, my hard earned taxes are burned up by countless of fooleries my government blunders into almost weekly. I'd rather give it to charity or a club of wanne-be philosophers.

Jesus and Buddha and others somesuch managed to get fed and clothed not by proclaiming that they have a right to others' labor, but by convincing those others that their thought is worthy of support.

The difference you're trying to point out seems unclear. Such proclamation would be implicit whether they said it one way or another, or how convincing. The moment someone decides to support them, who the fuck cares? But in a society where the state decides where money flows and who's worthy and not the matter becomes less of a personal decision.

How can you be coldly pragmatic without actually relying on historic data? Seems to me that you are just trying to justify a predetermined conclusion.

Uhmm, by thinking cold and pragmatic perhaps? I'd love to show some historical biographical data but your idea of 'history' appears to be warped somewhat. Again: what kind of things would you accept?

Why can't a would-be sage think and support themselves?

That would be a great solution and I'm sure many went that road. I do think in real life and with what I consider real thinkers (bloody ones) such a squeaky clean solution might not be possible, not in all cases at least, or in all stages of development.

Victor wrote:

What bothers me is not paying taxes (it's part of our social contract), but people who claim that they are personally entitled to the fruits of my labor.

You work for a university, Victor. Does your income derive from taxpayers' money or private business?

-

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Stories of Buddha, Lao Tze and Jesus are not usually considered history.

Really? And here I was going to write biblical myths into history alongside Tinkerbell and Grendel!

The resident 'geniuses' seem to think rather highly of those personages though, so I thought I'd throw them in.

But the few elements that have some form of general consensus paint a picture of them being supported by charity of others. Did they make them pay, ask or just waited patiently for an offer? I dunno but certainly they didn't seem to have a job.

By whatever means, they persuaded others that they were worth supporting. That is what I expect of any philosopher who wishes to live in indolence yet has great things to offer to humanity.

The moment Unidian, instead of demanding upkeep as his moral right, persuades others that his ideas are worthy enough to merit the upkeep of his indolence, I will cease having a problem with his preferred way of surviving.

The Greek used slaves, another very successful game strategy by the way! Certainly they were forcing others to toil!

Indeed; but not by claiming that they deserved a portion of others' labor simply due to being indolent.

A rather fitting example though, don't you think? Unidian is trying to treat me like his slave, you see.

By the way, just curious: how many examples from history would you accept before letting it support my supposition?

Try a couple, we'll take it from there.

Yeah, yeah, sweaty brows. My gosh, my hard earned taxes are burned up by countless of fooleries my government blunders into almost weekly. I'd rather give it to charity or a club of wanne-be philosophers.

I would too, but not if those philosophers claimed that I owe them a living.

The difference you're trying to point out seems unclear. Such proclamation would be implicit whether they said it one way or another, or how convincing. The moment someone decides to support them, who the fuck cares? But in a society where the state decides where money flows and who's worthy and not the matter becomes less of a personal decision.

As I had explained above, Unidian's argument does not rest on the presupposition of a state-possessing society.

Uhmm, by thinking cold and pragmatic perhaps? I'd love to show some historical biographical data but your idea of 'history' appears to be warped somewhat. Again: what kind of things would you accept?

I would take any great thinkers from the past who created their stuff in indolence supported by others' moral obligation to sustain the said indolence.

Basically, your job is to show some great ideas which sprung from indolence, yet which you could convincingly argue would not have been produced if their originators were deprived of their indolent lifestyle, and where such an indolent lifestyle wasn't supported by voluntary donations.

In order to justify the plausibility of our support of the voluntarily indolent on the grounds of their philosophical service to society, the very lowest hurdle you have to clear is to show that there have been great ideas which could not have emerged without a comparable state of indolence of their originators.

That would be a great solution and I'm sure many went that road. I do think in real life and with what I consider real thinkers (bloody ones) such a squeaky clean solution might not be possible, not in all cases at least, or in all stages of development.

meaning, they are too good to work?.. I can't conceive of a truly great thinker, who has something significant to contribute, yet who lives the life of voluntary indolence supported by moral blackmail of others.

David Quinn wrote:You work for a university, Victor. Does your income derive from taxpayers' money or private business?

My university provides more in financial benefits to the state than it draws from the state in taxes, dude. However, the state's taxpayers aren't morally obligated to maintain a public university system -- they just voluntarily choose to do so. Unidian is arguing for a moral obligation here.

vicdan wrote:Alas, history doesn't support this supposition. I can't think of any major figure in human history who produced something of great value while forcing others to support their indolence. Greek philosophers generally didn't make others pay for their upkeep. Buddha and Jesus and Lao Tze and Confucius didn't force others to support their indolence.

The Dalai Lama?

I'm sure I could come up with a process utilitarian argument to justify indolent philosophers that would run around the most efficient way to guarantee that there will be philosophers is to insure that all people who show potential to be philosophers are fully backed in their attempts (since the value of philosophy isn't measured for centuries after their death).

If anyone is wondering why I'm no longer participating, it's because it has all already been discussed in these threads:

Freedom, Capitalism, & Work

Minimum Wage: Is it Desirable? (Topic quickly shifts to work)

The Causes of Poverty (Topic is also work and welfare)

Grameen Bank & The Communist Fire Department

Vickie is hoping he can satiate his bizarre psychological need for abusive, hostile debate by drawing me into a repeat of the above threads, but it's not going to happen. Mentioning me by name 100 times is not going to work, either.

My position is fully detailed in the above threads.

Katy wrote:The Dalai Lama?

While I am not aware of the Dalai Lama having originated any world-shaking ideas, I would be curious to find out whether he claims that it's others' moral duty to support him.

Who would match these criteria? There are few enough philosophers who lived indolent lives. Of them, few were great, and of those who were, who both required their indolence in order to manifest philosophical greatness, and failed to secure their indolence by morally legitimate means such as persuasion?

Who would you proffer? Socrates? Plato? Aristotle? Spinoza? Kant? Locke? Hume? Mill? Nietzsche? Sartre? Quine? Carnap? None of them were moochers. Not a single one was of the "feed me lest I fail to manifest greatness of thought" school of social reasoning.

Those who think, think. Philosophical genius is not easy to stop; and frankly, I have little use for the wanna-be great philosophers who supposedly couldn't possibly think their great thoughts if they had to work to sustain themselves. I am yet to see any actual great thoughts come from people like that.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm sure I could come up with a process utilitarian argument to justify indolent philosophers that would run around the most efficient way to guarantee that there will be philosophers is to insure that all people who show potential to be philosophers are fully backed in their attempts (since the value of philosophy isn't measured for centuries after their death).

Hop to it then. Go ahead and actually come up with such an argument, and back it by data (since it would be a utilitarian argument), instead of proclaiming that you could do it.

Unidian wrote:Vickie

Yes, Unidoodoo?..

Dude, don't be so pathetic. At least make your insults be worthy of an adult.

is hoping he can satiate his bizarre psychological need for abusive

Meaning, defending myself from accusations of being morally inferior, and from imposition of unwarranted moral obligation, is abusive of you? Oh, you poor dear! Perhaps you should pick more carefully what you try to argue then, instead of whining like a little pwn3d bitch!

hostile debate by drawing me into a repeat of the above threads, but it's not going to happen. Mentioning me by name 100 times is not going to work, either.

I am just clarifying your position for others, since I am sure few people would want to read those four threads. I trust you don't mind my executive summary of your claims.

My position is fully detailed in the above threads.

It sure is. :)

Since most people work, being at work puts people in an environment that reflects what a lot of other people are experiencing, and often puts people in touch with more people, and people of a different sort, than they would interact with otherwise. In these ways, work could put a philosopher in touch with parts of reality, especially interpersonal reality, that might otherwise not be seen.

I've never realized the profound impact jobs have had on me until I quit them. Afterwards I realize how much I learned about myself, about other people, and about work itself and how valuable the experience actually was. If nothing else certain jobs have helped me realize just what I didn't want to do and, in the case of my last job before the one I have now, how unfulfilled the work left me (which turned me back to Mindful Wisdom after a three year absence and eventually lead me here).

The most profound changes in my life have come when I was completely frustrated and the least forward motion when I was perfectly happy. I'd like to think I've broken out of that cycle and am continuously moving forward but I'd be kidding myself.

vicdan wrote:While I am not aware of the Dalai Lama having originated any world-shaking ideas, I would be curious to find out whether he claims that it's others' moral duty to support him.

Are we necessarily after world-shaking ideas? One could offer many monks in different traditions as people who spend their time on introspection at the expense of either the tax payers or volunteer donations.

Buddhist monks in Tibet (and likely elsewhere though I don't know) collect food from people daily as it is their moral responsibility to feed them (they get spiritual bonus points or something for it). Yes the Dalai Lama is amongst them.

The pope would be a fairly easy person to point at - and they've certainly changed history a lot of times. The government may not support them, but they do live off of other people as a moral/religious duty.

I suspect looking through history you could find many religious people who did this. It's just a matter of whether or not we're willing to support the secularization of this. *shrugs* my reasons for support are largely pragmatic rather than moral though.

Victor,

DQ: You work for a university, Victor. Does your income derive from taxpayers' money or private business?

V: My university provides more in financial benefits to the state than it draws from the state in taxes, dude.

I'm sure it does. But what about those academics in your university who engage in pure knowledge areas, such as mathematics and philosophy? A lot of those types of academics don't directly contribute to the financial well-being of the state, yet they are happy enough to be funded by the taxpayer.

However, the state's taxpayers aren't morally obligated to maintain a public university system -- they just voluntarily choose to do so. Unidian is arguing for a moral obligation here.

If the state were to stop funding public universities tomorrow, the academics would be up in arms. They would be loudly arguing that the state has a moral obligation to keep that high-brow part of the culture alive, irrespective of what is produced from it. In other words, they would be using the same sort of moral arguments that Unidian uses.

Indeed, the state funding of universities throughout the centuries was maintained, in part at least, by the ability of academics to make the state feel guilty if it didn't support the "pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". And you are a current beneficiary of that time-honoured system of extortion.

-

Victor,

I am just clarifying your position for others, since I am sure few people would want to read those four threads. I trust you don't mind my executive summary of your claims.

Your "executive summary" is ridiculous. It is completely biased and without a shred of legitimacy. And although you claim to be "sure" nobody wants to read those threads, why don't you let them decide for themselves?

Meaning, defending myself from accusations of being morally inferior, and from imposition of unwarranted moral obligation, is abusive of you? Oh, you poor dear! Perhaps you should pick more carefully what you try to argue then, instead of whining like a little pwn3d bitch!

Nice try. But if anyone reads those threads I linked to, they will observe that it was you who got "pwned" in the opinion of most who commented on the debates. In fact, you got pwned so badly that there was a lot of speculation about whether you'd been replaced by the body-snatchers. Ring any bells?

Also, can you try something a little less than juvenile than trying to bait and goad me into engaging you with comments like "little bitch" and so on? That tactic is too worn out to be effective. You aren't going to get your jollies by dragging me down to your level this time unless you really step up your game.

As for your moral inferiority, I (and others) think it is amply demonstrated by your hostile, abusive, and condescending treatment of others. I doubt any other evidence of your egomaniacal nature is really necessary, although readers are welcome to explore the linked threads and decide for themselves whether your presumptuous and trollish characterizations of my position are accurate.

Trevor,

Just for the record, there is no such thing as an "indolent philosopher." Indolence is defined as an unwillingness to work in any form, whereas the voluntary unemployment I advocate is an unwillingness to work against one's will. Since philosophy is a form of work, the "indolent philosopher" is a contradiction in terms. You are allowing the opposition to frame the debate here.

"Indolence" is Victor's new term of abuse with which he hopes to tar and denigrate advocates of voluntary unemployment. We should not aid him in his regressive and inhumane quest by accepting his incoherent terms.

I'm not trying to call you out, because allowing the opposition to frame the debate is a very common occurrence due to our lingering societal conditioning. I unwittingly let it happen all the time myself. But the more we are aware of it, the better.

David Quinn wrote:what about those academics in your university who engage in pure knowledge areas, such as mathematics and philosophy? A lot of those types of academics don't directly contribute to the financial well-being of the state, yet they are happy enough to be funded by the taxpayer.

Indeed. The key point is that they aren't claiming it's the taxpayers' moral duty to fund them -- the taxpayers choose to fund pure science, arts, etc.

If the state were to stop funding public universities tomorrow, the academics would be up in arms. They would be loudly arguing that the state has a moral obligation to keep that high-brow part of the culture alive, irrespective of what is produced from it.

No, David. They would be making a pragmatic argument -- that higher ed is incredibly important for the long-term well-being of society -- and not an a-priori moral argument as Unidian does, that the taxpayers must fund the academia because academics simply don't want to do anything else.

Surely your mind is not so corrupt yet that you cannot recognize this simple fact. "Fund my academic pursuits because I can't do anything else" is emphatically not an argument advanced by the academia proponents.

In other words, they would be using the same sort of moral arguments that Unidian uses.

Erm, no.

Indeed, the state funding of universities throughout the centuries was maintained, in part at least, by the ability of academics to make the state feel guilty if it didn't support the "pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". And you are a current beneficiary of that time-honoured system of extortion.

'Knowledge for its own sake' has given us electronics, computers, space flights, etc. Seemingly paradoxically to those who don't understand the epistemic processes, there is nothing more pragmatic than the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake -- when foundational science bears fruit, it often bears fruit that changes our whole world. Contrawise, I am yet to be convinced of the utility of indolence.

Unidian wrote:Your "executive summary" is ridiculous. It is completely biased and without a shred of legitimacy. And although you claim to be "sure" nobody wants to read those threads, why don't you let them decide for themselves?

I am not stopping them, dude. :)

Nice try. But if anyone reads those threads I linked to, they will observe that it was you who got "pwned" in the opinion of most who commented on the debates. In fact, you got pwned so badly that there was a lot of speculation about whether you'd been replaced by the body-snatchers. Ring any bells?

it sure does. I remember you talking a lot about how everyone agreed with you in chat -- and then nobody came to your defense in the actual discussion. You even expressed bitter astonishment about how all of those 'supporters' of yours vanished when the push came to shove, those summer soldiers.

Yes, I remember quite clearly, Nat. You, on the other hand, seem to have edited the past in your mind.

Also, can you try something a little less than juvenile than trying to bait and goad me into engaging you with comments like "little bitch" and so on?

What did you expect from 'Vickie', dude?

For you to whine about me acting juvenile is strange to say the least.

As for your moral inferiority, I (and others) think it is amply demonstrated by your hostile, abusive, and condescending treatment of others. I doubt any other evidence of your egomaniacal nature is really necessary, although readers are welcome to explore the linked threads and decide for themselves whether your presumptuous and trollish characterizations of my position are accurate.

They sure are. :)

For the ease of comparing my egomaniacal summary to he content of your posts, here is my whole egomaniacal summary of your position:

• Everyone should have a right to not work, yet survive. Having to work for a living is slavery.
• The need to work is rendered 'slavery' by the mere existence of the possibility that others could support the indolent -- the would-be moocher is enslaved by those who never touched him, but merely refuse to give him the fruits of their labor.
• Those who work have a moral obligation to support those who choose not to.
• The indolent do not have a moral obligation to free the workers from the imposed duty to support the indolence. The moral obligation to free others from various forms of slavery is very one-way like this.
• Those who endorse this involuntary support of indolence are morally superior to those who do not.

You are free to demonstrate exactly how any point item in this summary is not an accurate representation of your position.

vicdan wrote:...the taxpayers choose to fund pure science, arts, etc.

This is frequently false in the case of art. I have seen quite a few conservatives, in the process of railing against "immoral" art funded by the NEA, for example, say that art should not be government-funded at all.

Yes, they do indeed exist; but I am yet to see any artist argue for the funding of arts on the grounds that the rest of society is obligated to feed the artists because those artists can do nothing but simply create art. Should we similarly fund underwater basket-weavers because they are constitutionally unsuited to anything but weaving baskets underwater?

The actual arguments advanced in favor of arts funding are virtually universally pragmatic -- i.e. that funding arts actually improves the society -- and I have never, ever seen anyone advance Unidian's argument that we as a society simply owe a living to those who can't or won't earn it themselves, such as some artists or underwater basket-weavers.

vicdan wrote:The actual arguments advanced in favor of arts funding are virtually universally pragmatic -- i.e. that funding arts actually improves the society...

This sounds rather similar to much of the argument made in those old threads: that giving money to the voluntarily unemployed will lead to an improved society, i.e. one in which fewer people are homeless or starving.

And I agree with that argument; but that's not Unidian's point. His argument is that the society has a moral obligation to sustain the voluntarily indolent, rather than a pragmatic reason for it.

The pragmatic argument can be made in any number of ways, and in fact I agree with one of them (that the overall monetary cost of sustaining the voluntarily indolent will be less than the cost of not doing so); it's Unidian's argument I have a problem with.