|
I have to go with Drunken.Jedi. While you may only say that we "seems" to be greedier, Pascal in the mid-XVIIth century already stated that man lived in misery after losing the paradise of Eden.
The greatest massacre in history occurred during the conquest of America.
The Middle-Ages were one of the most violent periods in history.
Solidarity seems to be partially motivated by precarity, and as our society raises individual comfort, it seems to decline.
This however is only true for the higher tiers of the western way of life, which is much less than "humans in general".
A quick word about the involvement of Jews in the funding of communism : I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject myself, but my grandfather is. He has led a personal research on similar matters, and he told me that many jewish banks did indeed fund Lenin and the bolcheviks. Now, before jumping to conspiracy theories, one must keep in mind that it probably was to fight the Russian nobility who maintained an archaic feudal system and was openly hostile to foreign banks, among which many were jewish.
Why so many jewish banks? Simple, because they originally weren't allowed to own land. Finance was the only business they could turn to (we're talking about the Middle-Ages here).
|
On March 27 2012 20:16 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
Thank you, I know what the word means, but putting the word to seem into a statement does not mean that I should be exempt from any criticism.
Putting the word "seems" in there indicates that you're not quite sure whether your statement is true, but what I'm pointing out is that it is false. As far as I see it, you now have two viable options: you can either retract your statement or give reasons why you think it is true after all.
Thanks for pointing that out, but as said in the OP
I know that I'am going to come off as uninformed when my rambling below is read, but I would just like to put my thoughts "out there" for judgement and criticism. I also realise that I don't usually make much sense and that my analogies are more often than not improper, nevertheless, I'm here to learn, not to impress.
|
Okay, this is becoming tiresome. Could you please stop dodging?
The assertion that humanity was better and kinder in the past is quite a central point both in Chaplin's speech and in your elaborations. I challenged that assertion because I think it is completely false and that the very opposite is the case.
Now in light of that, do you still think that your original assertion is true? If so please give reasons for that. If not, please acknowledge that.
|
On March 27 2012 20:45 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
Okay, this is becoming tiresome. Could you please stop dodging?
The assertion that humanity was better and kinder in the past is quite a central point both in Chaplin's speech and in your elaborations. I challenged that assertion because I think it is completely false and that the very opposite is the case.
Now in light of that, do you still think that your original assertion is true? If so please give reasons for that. If not, please acknowledge that.
Dodging? I know that I was wrong to say that, so what do you want me to do? Do you want me to edit it our of the OP? Do you want an apology for my incorrect assertion? If that is what you want, my response to you is a hearty "fuck you" because I already declared in the OP that not everything I say will make sense or be correct.
|
All I've wanted was for you to acknowledge that the statement was incorrect, which prior to your post above you had not done, so thank you for that.
|
You will not learn if you don't at least try to defend your assumptions.
Sometimes I express an opinion that is contrary to my beliefs simply to get a debate going.
If you really don't have anything to say after someone says you're wrong, it means you didn't think this through. But it's ok because we almost never really reflect on things. However, to learn from that, you should sit down and think of at least one thing to say in defense of your opinions.
|
That people in general were better and kinder in the past is not a central tenet of this speech.
The industrial revolution had provided more food, clothes and all kinds of material goods that previously ordinary people would not have been able to afford. I'm pretty sure that if you look at life in the 1930s compared to the 1900s you would see a huge change in the lifestyles of the poor. Ordinary people had moved from generally working for themselves in the fields to working in factories for rich men.
The advances in technology had facilitated the first world war, in as much as humanity now had the capacity to travel the huge distances required to wage war on a grand scale. The war leading to many ordinary people being drafted into service as soldiers. For what purpose? It surely wasn't to benefit the ordinary man and woman. They were fighting for the desires of those rich and important men who were their masters.
This is the subject of Chaplin's speech. It is not saying that people used to be kinder, In fact he says the exact opposite . He tells them that kindness resides within all men, if they can only look within themselves for right and wrong instead of following the "machine men".
|
If I remember correctly it was Hegel who spoke of the evolution of work, from working for yourself to working for a land owner. But I believe that he added another dimension, speaking of men who don't create anymore but are part of a bigger, unhuman process.
However, this overlooks the state of slaves (who were men, too) during the Antiquity, and the feudal system during the Middle-Ages where most of the work is provided on the lord's land, for his own profit.
Where I do agree is that the masses that we see every day in this global village had not been seen before. Maybe we're desensitized by this, maybe we look at others like we would stare at cattle. But maybe we're actually more aware of our surroundings and we don't see foreigners with the same hostility.
Oh and happy bday by the way.
|
On March 27 2012 20:21 Kukaracha wrote:
Why so many jewish banks? Simple, because they originally weren't allowed to own land. Finance was the only business they could turn to (we're talking about the Middle-Ages here).
Christians and muslims were prohibited from loaning money with interest.
|
On March 27 2012 18:43 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:34 sam!zdat wrote:On March 27 2012 16:17 Azera wrote:On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers. Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though Thanks! Bro, I know the feeling. Reading "The History of Love" by Nicole Krauss atm, going to read the 4th edition of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Haven't read the first 3 though >.<
You mean the 4th book? Why would you do that??
|
Has the entire human race lost it's way? Has greed consumed our souls, poisoned our minds thoughts? What exactly is 'the way'? It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world, but as time passed, as our greed - to be represented metaphorically here as a giant ball of fire in the sky - grew, our passion or lust for an abundance in everything in our lives burn more furiously in us, the flood has dried up. What now plagues us is an unbearable drought.
I haven't been around on the Earth for very long. But if today is any indication of yesteryear. Then I'm sure people are the same they have always been. There's always been greed and wars, and etc...
Contrary, standard of living is always advancing. The common joe with a cellphone has better communication today than presidents and world leaders had, not even 50 years ago. Microwaves, planes, GPS, internet... I think many people think the world is worse off today, because we are more aware of what actually is happening now than ever before.
|
We're not more aware of what is happening. What is happening is far too complex too understand. This is the nature of globalization.
Standard of living is advancing but we measure by the wrong standard. Global industry currently operates at about 140% the capacity of the Earth. Essentially, we are borrowing from the future... or more accurately, our parents borrowed from our future and are not going to be able to pay back the loans.
|
On March 29 2012 01:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Global industry currently operates at about 140% the capacity of the Earth.
Where does this figure come from?
|
On March 29 2012 02:17 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 01:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Global industry currently operates at about 140% the capacity of the Earth. Where does this figure come from?
Peter Gilding, the book is The Great Disruption.
Figures and things are not in my area of expertise, so I don't remember exactly what it is based on. I think it mainly has to do with comparison of carbon emissions produced by industry versus the ability of ecosystem to draw down that carbon (the goal being a steady-state economy in which these two things are balanced - we can augment the ability to draw down carbon through technology). There may be other factors which play into this figure as well, I'm at work and can't refer to the text, sorry.
|
While that speech is "inspirational," it actually is sort of contradictory and shallow when you stop and think about what is going on. He tells "soldiers" to fight for democracy, not dictatorships, essentially.
That is basically like "fighting for peace." While it can sort of work in theory, it really just doesn't make a lot of sense.
As far as this whole "humanity has lost its way" idea...
[rant]
I consider myself a historian, an ancient historian to be precise (I have a masters in ancient history, whether that qualifies me or not is an individual choice I guess). People haven't "lost their way." People have always been greedy, selfish, violent, racist, xenophobic, I could go on and on. I guess if you believe in the whole "eden" story(which I don't), people lost their way. Outside of that, not even close. If anything "humanity" has gotten better. More specifically, life is better for a greater percentage of the world population than it has ever been. There might be brief moments in history where people, in terms of wealth per capita, lived better (ironicially, after major catastophies such as the Black Death or massive wars, where the survivors have more "wealth" per capita), but in generally life is better now than it has ever been for the vast majority of people in the world.
There is also this notion that the time we live in is a "special time." Newsflash, basically every generation EVER has thought this. It is how humans work. We always think we are the most important. We always think our time is exceptional. You could point to things like the "information age" and say that makes our time special, but as the speech suggests, people thought the radio and airplane were species-altering inventions when they were made (and they basically were). 100 years from now, people will be thinking thier time is particulary special or a great turning point in human history. That is just how people work.
[/rant]
|
I think there is a strong thesis to be made that the shift that is occuring in the contemporary moment is qualitatively different than the shifts that have occurred previously. The previous shifts have been accompanied by a gradual expansion of territory ruled by a single hegemony - we have reached the point at which the frontier has looped around and found itself coming the other way.
For background, I have studied a little ancient history (mostly the late Roman republic and early empire) but my field is primarily intellectual history of the 20th century.
I agree with you that the "people used to be nicer!" argument is pretty facile. The ancient world was cruel as fuck.
|
On March 29 2012 03:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I think there is a strong thesis to be made that the shift that is occuring in the contemporary moment is qualitatively different than the shifts that have occurred previously. The previous shifts have been accompanied by a gradual expansion of territory ruled by a single hegemony - we have reached the point at which the frontier has looped around and found itself coming the other way.
See, you're doing it too 
|
Sorry, doing what? I don't follow.
I was responding directly to your post.
|
I guess globalization, mass media and such are big changes, true, and we now that things are changing at a very high speed.
However, maybe tomorrow will be even more different, so really, there is no way to determine if our time are particularly meaningful or not.
|
Why do you say that there is no way? Is this just an assumption? Seems like a strong epistemological claim.
It might very well be true but I am interested in hearing thoughts on a theoretical argument for the intractability of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
