GENIUS FORUMS

vicdan wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:The "criticism" was just an accusation that he clings to philosophy to prop up his self-esteem and salve his fear of failure. Not really much there to "address."

No, the criticism was that doing philosophy due to suffering is not a good approach,

What does this mean? That there's an alternative way to approach philosophy? That certain philosophers approached philosophy by way of motive other than suffering? Utter rubbish. It is the only way that thought is approached. You deign to psychoanalyse Nat's motives for his position on this issue yet your appreciation for psychology is poor at best.

and that imposing moral obligation to support you upon others is immoral.

It is entirely reasonable to posit a social framework wherein a moral obligation to sustain people is inherent in that system. The standard line of "you can't expect people to keep you for nothing" is, itself, built on a moral whim. It is a simple fact that some people, philosophers or not, are not psychologically capable of conventional employment. To force them to work seems entirely cruel and socially unsophisticated to me. It's also economically unnecessary. Indeed it is economically foolish to force employment upon those who will not be productive. It is far more economically viable to keep them on a modest stipend.

Nat doesn't need to build a social philosophy to legitimise his life. It is enough to live and function on the basis of moral and/or intellectual social disobedience, if one so chooses. We recognise the virtue of this in certain contexts. That context ought be broadened in a modern, civilised society. The demand that people must work to live is part of western culture's envy driven neuroses. It's fascism, pure and simple.

Dan,

Fair enough. Your call to make. But given that you acknowledge it as trolling and don't intend to stop it, I don't think it would be productive for me to continue participating. Perhaps we can discuss this again at a later time, ideally in an environment more conducive to rational discourse than the current thread.

Your latest post was very good, BTW. It outlines several important points in a concise manner. You make the case well, and as I've said before, you should do it more often. It's a very important issue dealing with a huge attachment in people's lives (the primary one in terms of time invested) and you're quite well-equipped to criticize it.

A social framework in which economic self-support is is not irrationally viewed as a universal obligation is both possible and desirable in terms of freedom, morality, human rights, productivity, and virtually every other sane value. It is a truly progressive idea in the deepest sense - a visionary concept which is far ahead of its time.

Forced work is a human tragedy. In 200 years, those who now oppose freedom from economic coercion will be seen in the same light as those who practiced chattel slavery in 1807. What the Emancipation Proclamation started has yet to be finished. And that will be my final statement on the matter.

Unidian wrote:Dan,

Fair enough. Your call to make. But given that you acknowledge it as trolling and don't intend to stop it, I don't think it would be productive for me to continue participating. Perhaps we can discuss this again at a later time, ideally in an environment more conducive to rational discourse than the current thread.

I'm prepared to allow a continuation in the hope that my stated distaste for the personal shit is heeded. We'll see how that works out.

Your latest post was very good, BTW. It outlines several important points in a concise manner. You make the case well, and as I've said before, you should do it more often. It's a very important issue dealing with a huge attachment in people's lives (the primary one in terms of time invested) and you're quite well-equipped to criticize it.

That's the key point: it is about attachments. People tend not to see their moral positions in that light, and they should do.

A social framework in which economic self-support is is not irrationally viewed as a universal obligation is both possible and desirable in terms of freedom, morality, human rights, productivity, and virtually every other sane value. It is a truly progressive idea in the deepest sense - a visionary concept which is far ahead of its time.

It shouldn't be ahead of its time, though. The problem is we are yet enamoured with traditional work values and have not enough humanity or reason to see psychological realties that don't fit within the parameters of that tradition as other than "attitude" which needs adjusting. It's the same sort of thinking that derides homosexuality as a "choice".

Forced work is a human tragedy.

It is an unnecessary evil. We could easily do away with it if we could get out minds in order.

In 200 years, those who now oppose freedom from economic coercion will be seen in the same light as those who practiced chattel slavery in 1807. What the Emancipation Proclamation started has yet to be finished. And that will be my final statement on the matter.

I am currently writing a post/essay about the basis of western neuroses. It will contain observations that pertain to this issue. Our freedoms actually enslave us and we don't know it. We are blind to the caveats contained within them.

Dan Rowden wrote:What does this mean? That there's an alternative way to approach philosophy? That certain philosophers approached philosophy by way of motive other than suffering? Utter rubbish. It is the only way that thought is approached.

You mean people only think when they are suffering and discontent?.. That no actual interest in understanding, by itself, is possible? What an impoverished view of the world you have!

I had an interest in thinking when I was financially comfortable, when I was poor, and now when i am comfortable again. My interest in understanding the world has nothing to do with suffering -- which, incidentally, could hardly be otherwise, as my primary interest philosophically is epistemology, which has very little to do with ethics or social order. Of course you don't consider analytic philosophy to be actual philosophy...

You deign to psychoanalyse Nat's motives for his position on this issue yet your appreciation for psychology is poor at best.

What you are speaking about is not psychology.

It is entirely reasonable to posit a social framework wherein a moral obligation to sustain people is inherent in that system. The standard line of "you can't expect people to keep you for nothing" is, itself, built on a moral whim. It is a simple fact that some people, philosophers or not, are not psychologically capable of conventional employment. To force them to work seems entirely cruel and socially unsophisticated to me.

What about people psychologically incapable of supporting moochers? isn't forcing them to support such moochers also cruel and unsophisticated?..

Nat doesn't need to build a social philosophy to legitimise his life. It is enough to live and function on the basis of moral and/or intellectual social disobedience, if one so chooses.

Oh, he can disobey all he wants -- and if he were to do it as Diogenes did, without demanding that everyone else pay the price of his disobedience, i would be all for him. Go vow of poverty! Go asceticism! More power to self-deprivation! But no, he expects others to pay the price of his 'rebellion'.

We recognise the virtue of this in certain contexts. That context ought be broadened in a modern, civilised society. The demand that people must work to live is part of western culture's envy driven neuroses. It's fascism, pure and simple.

But i don't demand that you work. I simply don't wish my work to be used to support you. Be unemployed for all I care, more power to you! it's not the unemployment that bothers me, it's the demand that I pay for Unidian's indolence -- the proclamation that I owe him the support for it.

In 200 years, those who now oppose freedom from economic coercion will be seen in the same light as those who practiced chattel slavery in 1807.

You mean refusing to let others abuse you is the same as abusing them?.. Demanding that others support you just because you don't wish to work, and having them refuse to do so, is equivalent to being a slave?..

We are through the looking glass. You might as well say that someone stopping your assault upon them it the true assault in the situation.

Victorious Danilchenko!

LOL. Rich, rich, rich... and getting richer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

((((((((BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!))))))))

Victor wrote:

Dan wrote: What does this mean? That there's an alternative way to approach philosophy? That certain philosophers approached philosophy by way of motive other than suffering? Utter rubbish. It is the only way that thought is approached.

You mean people only think when they are suffering and discontent?.. That no actual interest in understanding, by itself, is possible? What an impoverished view of the world you have!

I'd sooner my improverished reality than your rich fantasy world. You have too crass a notion of suffering. It's Buddhism 101 for you, dude.

I had an interest in thinking when I was financially comfortable, when I was poor, and now when i am comfortable again. My interest in understanding the world has nothing to do with suffering -- which, incidentally, could hardly be otherwise, as my primary interest philosophically is epistemology, which has very little to do with ethics or social order. Of course you don't consider analytic philosophy to be actual philosophy...

The circumstances in which one turns to thinking is laregly irrelevant. It's the turning to itself that signifies suffering. One begins thinking because one lacks; lacking is suffering.

Victor wrote:

Dan wrote:It is entirely reasonable to posit a social framework wherein a moral obligation to sustain people is inherent in that system. The standard line of "you can't expect people to keep you for nothing" is, itself, built on a moral whim. It is a simple fact that some people, philosophers or not, are not psychologically capable of conventional employment. To force them to work seems entirely cruel and socially unsophisticated to me.

What about people psychologically incapable of supporting moochers? isn't forcing them to support such moochers also cruel and unsophisticated?..

Well, the solution for those people is simple enough: involuntary euthanasia. Failing that they might like to consider that in a pluralistic society everyone pays for something they find morally objectionable. You need to be wary of the implications of your argument on this point. For it to be reasonable it must be consistent, right? Or are you the only one who gets to have social programs invalidated because they don't like it? I presume, based on the argument that you don't want to subsidise people's "indolence", that you advocate the abolition of every government social program that exists. That would be consistent. Is that what you advocate?

Victor wrote:

Dan wrote:Nat doesn't need to build a social philosophy to legitimise his life. It is enough to live and function on the basis of moral and/or intellectual social disobedience, if one so chooses.

Oh, he can disobey all he wants -- and if he were to do it as Diogenes did, without demanding that everyone else pay the price of his disobedience, i would be all for him. Go vow of poverty! Go asceticism! More power to self-deprivation! But no, he expects others to pay the price of his 'rebellion'.

He advocates for a system where no-one gets left behind or is forced to needlessly suffer at the sacrificial alter of outdated and largely mindless work ethics. And can you stop using Diogenes to make a point. During the period he lived on the streets of Athens he was a total moocher. More than that, he had no compunction in tricking people into giving him things. He would have openly mocked your point of view.

I live in the state with the highest unemployment rate and it doesn't look like it's going to turn around anytime soon. Eventually the time period will come where the unemployment checks stop coming in and 7.5% of the working age population will have no income. The only option they will have left is social welfare. Does this mean they are lazy? Absolutely not, it's the evolution of culture happening right in front of our yes. During this century the unemployment rate will continue to rise drastically in the industrialized world as humans continue to get replaced by robots and artificial intelligence. I view this future as a wonderful thing as the human race will truly begin to free itself of worldly burdens and force people to look more closely at the deeper philosophical issues of reality. And guess why all these people will begin to think more? Because they will suffer, they will suffer because they wont get the ego gratification that a traditional job provides. I actually think two new classes will be created, the thinkers and the hedonists. The hedonists will invariably use their liberation from work to dive into a sea of pleasure and Ecstasy which will be at the tips of their fingers. Unfortunately I see the hedonists being the larger of the two classes.

I tend to sympathize with the idea that the world could be a totally different place if it were not for all the greed and competition which ultimately will have to be replaced by a better solution.

Technological singularity could help us solve this issue and is currently being pursued increasingly since it is obvious that the most powerful leaders on earth even collectively are incapable of acting completly impartial in the distribution of wealth, knowledge, and resource distribution.

Untill this is achieved we have the misfortune of being expected to fuel unsustainable population growth either directly or indirectly.


There are obviously options other than living on a dole of imaginary currency including farming ones own food and contributing knowledge or inventions to humanity in order to procure passive income.

However the huge complexity of every individuals problems and desires renders our leaders unable to provide far reaching solutions for the restructuring of human society to provide for the simple yet fufilling existences most intellectuals would prefer over a rampant consumerist life.



We are certainly approaching some tipping points when it comes to potential pandemics and all out evironmental collapse so if you can live on a modest amount of currency while reducing your footprint on the larger picture than more power to you.


I

Dan

That certain philosophers approached philosophy by way of motive other than suffering? Utter rubbish. It is the only way that thought is approached.

Victor relates to academic philosophers, logic twisters, and these folk do not approach philosophy via the path of deep suffering (just normal everyday suffering). Which is not to say that I disagree with most of what Victor says.

Philosophical conceptual innovation is dead anyway, all that is left is a kind of academic re-sorting. It's all been said, now all someone really wise and competent (ie not the god loving QRS :) needs to do is take it all in and rebuild it into a philosophical bible.

Come off it, Jimbo. You know quite well each individual has to do it from scratch, even with the wealth of supporting and helpful info that exists. It's just the way it is; anything less is religion.

Dan Rowden wrote:Come off it, Jimbo. You know quite well each individual has to do it from scratch, even with the wealth of supporting and helpful info that exists. It's just the way it is; anything less is religion.

But why should anyone do it from scratch? Such a long waste of time it would be for everyone to do it. I know you feel personally attached to this understanding but the majority of people simply don't want or need to spend the time. Most of them can be happy without resorting to philosophy.

I'm going to answer this in the "Spritual Life" thread so as not to side-track this discussion too much.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'd sooner my improverished reality than your rich fantasy world. You have too crass a notion of suffering. It's Buddhism 101 for you, dude.

Ah, I thought yoyu might go there. Do you realize how ridiculous this cop-out is?

According to the four noble truths, life is suffering. Everyone is suffering. if everyone is suffering but only very few people turn to philosophy, then you can't possibly say with a straight face that suffering pushes one to philosophy, no more than you can assign the same honor to breathing, or being a carbon-based life form.

Buddha was a prince before he turned to philosophy. Was he suffering so much? Well, he doesn't seem to have suffered more than the average peasant, that's for sure. Perhaps it was the mental anguish he experienced, when he realized how much suffering his lifestyle engenders? Ah, but then he was philosopher before his suffering increased so much -- philosophy caused the suffering, not the other way around!

Suffering does not lead one to being a philosopher; and when it does, it's not to being a philosopher. Turning to 'philosophy' because you hurt will not bring you to philosophy, just as poetically groveling for your life will not make your groveling poetry, nor you a poet

Victor wrote:Well, the solution for those people is simple enough: involuntary euthanasia.

Sweet! So we kill everyone who doesn't like being mooched off of. I like the way you think!

Failing that they might like to consider that in a pluralistic society everyone pays for something they find morally objectionable.

most morally objectionable recepients of payment aren't in a position to withdraw themselves from the public teat, but choose not to do so. Highways and public schools won't earn the money themselves -- but the voluntarily indolent can.

You need to be wary of the implications of your argument on this point. For it to be reasonable it must be consistent, right? Or are you the only one who gets to have social programs invalidated because they don't like it? I presume, based on the argument that you don't want to subsidise people's "indolence", that you advocate the abolition of every government social program that exists. That would be consistent. Is that what you advocate?

Nope. I have absolutely no problem with helping those who can't help themselves. In fact, I think those people aren't helped enough. What's more, i am even in favor of NIT, which would imply something equivalent to the dole for all who want it -- because that would be the most economically efficient system. Iam, however, very much against people like you and Unidian claiming that I owe you a living.

See, dude? Unlike you and Uni, I can hold policy views which are at odds with my personal preferences, because I recognize the difference between my personal preferences and social function. Try it sometimes.

Victor wrote:He advocates for a system where no-one gets left behind or is forced to needlessly suffer at the sacrificial alter of outdated and largely mindless work ethics. And can you stop using Diogenes to make a point. During the period he lived on the streets of Athens he was a total moocher. More than that, he had no compunction in tricking people into giving him things. He would have openly mocked your point of view.

Hahaha. Nice equivocation. Diogenes, who deliberately refrained from every physical comfort he could shed, who never demanded anything from anyone (except for Alexander to step out of his sun) doesn't seem to me to be anything like Uni.

Uni wants physical comforts. He just dislikes work even more. His rejection of work is not a principled thing, but an artifact of his weakness, a form of self-justification. Were he to act like Diogenes and eschew every comfort he possibly could, his claims would be a lot more believable.

Diogenes believed in rejecting civilization and its comforts, in returning to our basic animal essence. You do realize that the dole is one of civilization's comforts, right?..

Philosophaster wrote:Come on. Neil Mynyk, Dave Toast, and DHodges had already, on the first two pages of the thread, provided the exact same arguments and complaints ("you're just trying to justify yourself" and "nobody owes a living to people who choose not to work")

Look, you neurotic ladies feel free to gossip amongst yourselves, cringe-making though it is. But don't try paraphrasing me as, clearly, you're more concerned with making your point than understanding mine.

I posted a bullet-proof logical argument on the subject of the thread, nothing more. I certainly did not say anything even vaguely resembling "you're just trying to justify yourself" and "nobody owes a living to people who choose not to work", regardless of whether I actually think such things or not.

Leave me out of your cat fight. Go back and remove my name, my words and your interpretation of them from that fuckin post.

No.

It comes as no surprise that your pride overrides your intellectual integrity.

LOL.

They're gone, you little whiner. :-)

Well, now your brave pugilists have forsaken your entertainment, you have the chance to put down Nat's bucket and sponge, remove the towel from your neck and address a point of substance concerning your integrity.

What integrity? What integrity could a philosopher possibly have that would be greater than sucking on the public teat while philosophizing about how sucking on a public teat is a moral thing for philosophers to do?..

</sarcasm>

Dave:

Integrity? I misinterpreted something you wrote, and took it down when it was revealed that I misinterpreted it. Happens sometimes.

Victor:

Go away.

Thanks.

hey dude, why don't you read what Toast is referring to? it's on the second page.

P.S. Stop whining, you little bitch.

vicdan wrote: According to the four noble truths, life is suffering. Everyone is suffering. if everyone is suffering but only very few people turn to philosophy, then you can't possibly say with a straight face that suffering pushes one to philosophy, no more than you can assign the same honor to breathing, or being a carbon-based life form.

No wonder Dan pointed to Buddhism 101. Sigh.

Everyone has a vague notion of suffering and deceives himself mostly out of that notion (justifying). A real philosopher starts with a more distinct notion and in that sense the suffering of each human pushes this individual into further inquiries. The fact that other people deal with this suffering differently is certainly not an argument against Buddhist thought. It's explained by the notion of delusion, or as other traditions phrased it: continuous drunkenness. Coping mechanisms like any other.

Ah, but then he was philosopher before his suffering increased so much -- philosophy caused the suffering, not the other way around!

Sobering up will increase the experience of what first was avoided and denied by crude coping mechanisms. Crude of course in regards to getting wise but very efficient for leading productive lives in the hive.

Suffering does not lead one to being a philosopher

The idea is that the philosopher tries to find out the truth about suffering, his own and that of others. In a way he chases after it and in the process suffers probably more than if he wouldn't chase the truth.

Uni wants physical comforts. He just dislikes work even more. His rejection of work is not a principled thing, but an artifact of his weakness, a form of self-justification. Were he to act like Diogenes and eschew every comfort he possibly could, his claims would be a lot more believable.

So you criticize Uni for not going far enough? That's the spirit!