|
On November 12 2009 01:30 L wrote:Show nested quote +More formally, the flaw in Socrates' position is that you shouldn't think of ruling and self-interestedness as distinct.
Of course, Plato's Socrates does because for him (them) Justice is an other-worldly form with a distinct, objective reality. The entire city of words proves otherwise with regards to your first point. It was plenty possible to distinguish between the art of ruling and the art of making money. The art of making money was so prominent as a stand alone piece that the entire first book's setting, as well as the conversation that Socrates has with Cephalos. The fact that we've gone through a good 500 years or so of scholastic method analysis of authors that are fiercely individualist shouldn't taint your assumptions as to the indivisibility of an art and the art of moneymaking. Examination of our most regulated professions, with their roles and duties will provide a substantial body of modern examples of the division.
It seems to me that only a very bizarre view of history would ever drive a wedge between ruling and money handling...
Regardless, even if such a wedge does exist, it doesn't HAVE to -- and the best (strongest) rulers would understand this. This point is a reflection of the fact that I've stated that strength (which includes ruling) is a science -- something that goes through constant revision and improvement.
|
L, from your edit:
"One wouldn't argue that one's skill in painting contained their skill at making a living from painting, yet you'd readily confuse the two aspects when it comes to ruling or being strong. That seems more odd than the reverse."
Right -- that is why in my post above (p15) I explain that strength must be viewed holistically. It is no good being a painter unless you are able to excercise your techne. Likewise, it is no good being an institution if you can be crushed by other institutions.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 22:01 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:57 ShroomyD wrote:On November 11 2009 21:25 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed.  Weak idea -- if patents are removed there is no incentive to do research. Right? Patents destroy the incentive for innovation~~ monopolies suck right? I don't understand what you are arguing. You could be totally right that those companies with patents will charge monopoly prices on their drugs. What I am saying -- and what LeotheLion wrote above -- is that if you don't protect patents you won't have anyone doing drug research at all. I'd choose expensive drugs over no drugs. But if you can show me why researches will invest in the -very- expensive act of creating a drug just so they can watch another company analyze the drug and then sell it without having put capital in the act of research, then I'm all ears to your solution!
It's possible to have drug innovation in a world without patents. It's not possible with a draconian drug regulatory system like that of the FDA process in place. Throw out the FDA and patents at the same time and it's conceivable to get much much lower costs.
Even under the patent system, the current FDA process is awful and does little for consumer safety. I wouldn't mind seeing it go.
|
On November 12 2009 01:45 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 22:01 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 11 2009 21:57 ShroomyD wrote:On November 11 2009 21:25 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed. Weak idea -- if patents are removed there is no incentive to do research. Right? Patents destroy the incentive for innovation~~ monopolies suck right? I don't understand what you are arguing. You could be totally right that those companies with patents will charge monopoly prices on their drugs. What I am saying -- and what LeotheLion wrote above -- is that if you don't protect patents you won't have anyone doing drug research at all. I'd choose expensive drugs over no drugs. But if you can show me why researches will invest in the -very- expensive act of creating a drug just so they can watch another company analyze the drug and then sell it without having put capital in the act of research, then I'm all ears to your solution! It's possible to have drug innovation in a world without patents. It's not possible with a draconian drug regulatory system like that of the FDA process in place. Throw out the FDA and patents at the same time and it's conceivable to get much much lower costs. Even under the patent system, the current FDA process is awful and does little for consumer safety. I wouldn't mind seeing it go.
I'm with you on the FDA. I still don't see an answer to the incentive problem in regard to research/patents. Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of getting rid of patents in principle -- I just don't see how any further research would get done if that happened.
|
It is no good being a painter unless you are able to excercise your techne. Likewise, it is no good being an institution if you can be crushed by other institutions. No, that has nothing to do with the Techne itself. You're making a prescriptive assumption about what someone should do, not an observation about the skills they have.
I can be a fantastic moneymaker and completely shit at what I do. I'll still be well paid, but the quality of my work won't be awesome. I could, conversely, be the best possible basketball player in the world, but have a grand total of zero moneymaking skill and refuse to sign contracts/get scouted/etc. That wouldn't make me any less of a player.
It seems to me that only a very bizarre view of history would ever drive a wedge between ruling and money handling... 1) Money handling and the techne of moneymaking are separate things. 2) I would hardly be able to understand the actions of any form of non-coercive leader if I adopted your position. 3) The modern concept of a state or nation did not exist at the time of the writing, which makes importing such a concept of government completely out of the scope of the argument.
|
On November 12 2009 01:52 L wrote:Show nested quote +It is no good being a painter unless you are able to excercise your techne. Likewise, it is no good being an institution if you can be crushed by other institutions. No, that has nothing to do with the Techne itself. You're making a prescriptive assumption about what someone should do, not an observation about the skills they have. I can be a fantastic moneymaker and completely shit at what I do. I'll still be well paid, but the quality of my work won't be awesome. I could, conversely, be the best possible basketball player in the world, but have a grand total of zero moneymaking skill and refuse to sign contracts/get scouted/etc. That wouldn't make me any less of a player. Show nested quote +It seems to me that only a very bizarre view of history would ever drive a wedge between ruling and money handling... 1) Money handling and the techne of moneymaking are separate things. 2) I would hardly be able to understand the actions of any form of non-coercive leader if I adopted your position. 3) The modern concept of a state or nation did not exist at the time of the writing, which makes importing such a concept of government completely out of the scope of the argument.
None of these points addresses my (sustained) assertion that strength is holistic...
Again, the point at hand is what "makes" something "right" or "wrong" -- My position is that there is no such thing as something that "makes" an action, skill etc right or wrong except strength.
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA, in the previous page you are, in essence, trying to bankrupt the moral notion of compassion by declaring its validity subjective. You are saying, 'regardless of what you want, you are only right if you can get it'. And this allows your typically insensitive phallocentric 'I only want to improve my lot' viewpoint to be considered on an equal plane with the sort of humanitarian utilitarianism that is the counterpart in modern politics.
You should realise that your incapability to be bothered by the suffering of others is identical to the incapability of the people you described (who argue against your egocentricity) to accept your moral standpoint. People like you are the yang, and t'others are the ying. You are just a product of a number crunch. Society has a normal distribution of selfish and selfless. You happen to be one of the selfish. And the difference between the two is that selfless people help themselves by helping others, and selfish people help themselves by helping themselves.
When you say 'right = might', what you should actually say is 'might = choose what happens'.
The notion of right can only be used when applied to a moral formula. For example, if you want to examine an action under the lens of humanitarian utilitarianism, like:
You walk by a puddle in which a toddler is lying face down, dying, do you
a) divert your course in order to pick the toddler up and save his life?
b) walk past and save seconds on your journey?
By all means, if you are in no way bothered by this event, then you will probably take action b). But if one is looking at this problem under said lens, then a) is the right thing to do, and b) is the wrong thing. Under the morality of dog eat dog, clearly b) is the right thing to do. The toddler's parents are weak and get what's coming to them for allowing him to die.
The important pre-requisite for a moral judgment is a moral framework.
The fact of the matter is that even if only one person out of 1000 cares about others, in the context of humanitarian utilitarianism, he is right to seize power and get what he wants, ie justice and fairness for all.
So what is actually important is which morality a country should be governed by. Just because someone has the power to do something does NOT make them right, what they do has to correlate with the desired code of morality.
And what matters in this debate is the impartials. That is always the case. There are people who are built for compassion, and people who are built for selfish enterprise (like you). You will never stop being a monstrous, apathetic scoundrel, because you were born like that. But there are people up and down the country who might side with either viewpoint. Either greed is good or compassion is good. Or at least, the scale is weighted 40:60 compared to 60:40. For you, obviously, it sounds like your personal leaning is 90:10 weighted in favour of self-advancement.
The crux of the issue is that there CLEARLY is right and wrong, just depending on one's moral worldview. The real task in debate is convincing impartials that yours is closer to theirs than the opposition's. And that's where strength comes in. You have to use your strength to do what's right in accordance with your morality. Strength doesn't feature anywhere else in the matter though, and that's where I think you are wrong relying so much on a bizarre yardstick of strength to measure the validity of a proposed notion.
Forgive me if this is obvious to you, but from the way you type it doesn't seem apparent that you have given much thought to this aspect of the issue.
-HamerD
|
On November 12 2009 01:56 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 01:52 L wrote:It is no good being a painter unless you are able to excercise your techne. Likewise, it is no good being an institution if you can be crushed by other institutions. No, that has nothing to do with the Techne itself. You're making a prescriptive assumption about what someone should do, not an observation about the skills they have. I can be a fantastic moneymaker and completely shit at what I do. I'll still be well paid, but the quality of my work won't be awesome. I could, conversely, be the best possible basketball player in the world, but have a grand total of zero moneymaking skill and refuse to sign contracts/get scouted/etc. That wouldn't make me any less of a player. It seems to me that only a very bizarre view of history would ever drive a wedge between ruling and money handling... 1) Money handling and the techne of moneymaking are separate things. 2) I would hardly be able to understand the actions of any form of non-coercive leader if I adopted your position. 3) The modern concept of a state or nation did not exist at the time of the writing, which makes importing such a concept of government completely out of the scope of the argument. None of these points addresses my (sustained) assertion that strength is holistic... Again, the point at hand is what "makes" something "right" or "wrong" -- My position is that there is no such thing as something that "makes" an action, skill etc right or wrong except strength.
But then you aren't talking about 'strength'. You can pretend moral suasion forms a portion of strength, or that concessions to secure a smaller amount of advantage are strength, but at that point your definition is so broad that you're including the opposite of what your original position inside the scope of your new position. If I accept a purely holistic view as strength, a world perfectly ruled by the moral suasion which flows from a drive to equality, containing a perfectly fair system of governance would be said to be held together and justified by 'strength' too.
Since its clear that the opposite was meant in the initial exposition of strength that I objected to (as well as the manner in which Thrasymachus uses it), it falls to me to believe that your objection is sophistry. Anything that's 'right' is 'strong' and anything that's 'strong' creates 'right'. The logic is circular and has no reference to any outside factors, whereas our conception of 'right' does.
Even if you decided to talk about 'strength', there's nothing that suggests the opposite, that strength makes an action right or wrong. What it might do, however, is make an action legitimate. That would be the positivist position, which goes to lengths to avoid associating itself with a moral approval or disapproval.
Feel free to define what you're talking about if you want to get around the limitations of your current lack of definition. I outlined the argument against the first 2 iterations of Thrasymachus' position, including his rebuttal trying to link moneymaking and other arts, that's all I really set out to do.
|
On November 12 2009 02:01 Mischy wrote:
lOvOlUNiMEDiA, in the previous page you are, in essence, trying to bankrupt the moral notion of compassion by declaring its validity subjective. You are saying, 'regardless of what you want, you are only right if you can get it'. And this allows your typically insensitive phallocentric 'I only want to improve my lot' viewpoint to be considered on an equal plane with the sort of humanitarian utilitarianism that is the counterpart in modern politics.
You should realise that your incapability to be bothered by the suffering of others is identical to the incapability of the people you described (who argue against your egocentricity) to accept your moral standpoint. People like you are the yang, and t'others are the ying. You are just a product of a number crunch. Society has a normal distribution of selfish and selfless. You happen to be one of the selfish. And the difference between the two is that selfless people help themselves by helping others, and selfish people help themselves by helping themselves.
When you say 'right = might', what you should actually say is 'might = choose what happens'.
The notion of right can only be used when applied to a moral formula. For example, if you want to examine an action under the lens of humanitarian utilitarianism, like:
You walk by a puddle in which a toddler is lying face down, dying, do you
a) divert your course in order to pick the toddler up and save his life?
b) walk past and save seconds on your journey?
By all means, if you are in no way bothered by this event, then you will probably take action b). But if one is looking at this problem under said lens, then a) is the right thing to do, and b) is the wrong thing. Under the morality of dog eat dog, clearly b) is the right thing to do. The toddler's parents are weak and get what's coming to them for allowing him to die.
The important pre-requisite for a moral judgment is a moral framework.
The fact of the matter is that even if only one person out of 1000 cares about others, in the context of humanitarian utilitarianism, he is right to seize power and get what he wants, ie justice and fairness for all.
So what is actually important is which morality a country should be governed by. Just because someone has the power to do something does NOT make them right, what they do has to correlate with the desired code of morality.
And what matters in this debate is the impartials. That is always the case. There are people who are built for compassion, and people who are built for selfish enterprise (like you). You will never stop being a monstrous, apathetic scoundrel, because you were born like that. But there are people up and down the country who might side with either viewpoint. Either greed is good or compassion is good. Or at least, the scale is weighted 40:60 compared to 60:40. For you, obviously, it sounds like your personal leaning is 90:10 weighted in favour of self-advancement.
The crux of the issue is that there CLEARLY is right and wrong, just depending on one's moral worldview. The real task in debate is convincing impartials that yours is closer to theirs than the opposition's. And that's where strength comes in. You have to use your strength to do what's right in accordance with your morality. Strength doesn't feature anywhere else in the matter though, and that's where I think you are wrong relying so much on a bizarre yardstick of strength to measure the validity of a proposed notion.
Forgive me if this is obvious to you, but from the way you type it doesn't seem apparent that you have given much thought to this aspect of the issue.
-HamerD
Mischy, my friend,
You are certainly right that things are --obectively-- right or wrong depending on the moral code being used to judge it. Thus, accepting Jesus as your savior is the right thing to do if you accept the christian moral code.
My point is deeper -- that is, there is no fact of the matter about what moral code to accept beyond "the strongest." Please keep in mind, this does not rule out a "compassionate" pre-disposition. It only says that such a disposition will only be "right" in that it is "the strongest." For example, I have no problem imaging someone who adopts a "might makes right" code of ethics picking up the toddler in the pool. It could be that the Toddler's existence enriches the strength of our immoralist! This goes hand in hand with my original post on strength --- that in human existence, strength can only be understood in terms of cooperation. But that doesn't indicate what level or type of cooperation may exist. As I said previously, the level and type of cooperation is up for grabs -- and there could certainly be instances where nurseries full of babies are annihilated for one purpose or another -- and morally so!
You then move from defending "compassion" to arguing that there is a strong and weak approach to persuading others. I certainly agree. That is my point.
And as far as your discussion about "ying" "yang" and "product of number crunch" -- If these are supposed to be arguments, I fail to see their soundness or validity.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 01:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 01:13 L wrote:I'd be very impressed if you could say why Thrasymachus' position was "demolished." Taken narrowly, the statement that justice is the advantage of the stronger was defeated quite quickly by means of reference to the Greek notion of an art/practical body of knowledge or Techne. The concept of a complete ruler was subdivided into that of a ruler, who's purpose was to rule, and a subsidiary moneymaker, who's purpose was to make money. Since the art of self interestedness and the art of ruling were agreed to be distinct from one another, ruling as a means of self enrichment is not ruling, but self enrichment. Its Thrasymachus' later reworking of his position, that perfect injustice is stronger than justice, which was far harder to defeat. His original statement, however, was completely vivisected. This doesn't touch my position on strength. All it does it reinforce the fact that ruling can be done weakly and strongly. More formally, the flaw in Socrates' position is that you shouldn't think of ruling and self-interestedness as distinct. Of course, Plato's Socrates does because for him (them) Justice is an other-worldly form with a distinct, objective reality.
Hmmm, stated it plain and clearly. Governance is like any other profession and subject to self-serving behavior. The ideal of a perfect ruler with strict adherence to justice, universal and objective, does not exist in reality. The best sense of justice a person may have is a cultural vision of justice and already corrupts the individual ruler with society's self-serving attitudes. Beyond that rulers are humans and subject to corruption and temptations.
Despite all the rhetoric about morality and the such in the society, your position centered around the idea of strength is closer to way the world actually works. The strong - the virtuous (extremely capable sense) - in self-interests seek out relationships and arrangements that solidifies their strength.
In a world absent any sense of morality and social order (social order depends on recognizing morality), the strong would be seen as a danger to the rest of the population and the weak would gang up on strong individuals to remove such danger. Then the population would move onto the next strongest. Recognition of morality is one of the ways out of such a vicious cycle. By adhering to certain rules, the strong can convince the weak that they are not in danger. Coincidentally, they can use the trust from being moral to organize and rule the weaker individuals in society.
In a way, the idea of morality was created by the strong in order to placate and to justify its rule over the weak.
|
On November 11 2009 16:54 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
Honestly, I was fairly indifferent about the bill for a while. I realize the American health-care is fucked up. I don't like this particular solution, but so be it. But the thing that irks me about this is that I'm going to be penalized for my own choices.
I choose not to have health insurance on my own accord. I have a fairly strong immune system at this point in my life, any injuries I sustain are small ones (rolled ankles, sprained wrist) that I can self-care for. I see no point in having health insurance, due to the combination of price and myself finding it unnecessary, at this time in my life, and I probably won't until I have a family of my own (which I have no clue if and when that will happen).
Yet the government is deciding that I need to not only help pay for someone else's insurance who can not afford it, but also that I am going to be penalized for making my own decisions about my life.
There goes one of my freedoms.
And for that reason alone, I hope that this does not pass in the Senate.
Do you understand what a drain people, without health insurance, are on the country?
|
what the fuck is going on in here
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 02:17 Undisputed- wrote:
what the fuck is going on in here
lOvOlUNiMEDiA has us in a discussion about philosophy.
|
On November 12 2009 02:19 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 02:17 Undisputed- wrote:
what the fuck is going on in here lOvOlUNiMEDiA has us in a discussion about philosophy.
i see that
|
I almost didn't think this thread could get any worse, but it has sure managed. Taking Nietzsche's 'morality' as anything other than a critique on the prevalence of religious morality at the time is absolutely insane. Furthermore, extending it to a single portion of today's politics (health care) is worthless, as Nietzsche very much used it as a critique against democracy in the first place. Face it - you have issue with the structure of society itself, not simply health care. Your position is completely disingenuous in this thread, and brings nothing of purpose to the discussion.
I wonder, though, if you've ever considered you might be born the same person under different circumstances, and how those would change what you would become. Obviously, it's not equally easy for the same person to obtain the same power regardless of in which elements he's introduced to the world. Would you accept the fact that you would be weaker than someone else based on factors completely separate from your individual being? Along the same lines, do you accept the fact that the children of the 'strong' automatically gain a large portion of that power, even if they obtain the 'worst' genetics of their parents? If everyone does not have an equal chance at obtaining strength, how can it possibly be a factor in determining morality?
I find it hard to believe your position is not just simply nihilism.
|
On November 12 2009 02:08 L wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 01:56 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 12 2009 01:52 L wrote:It is no good being a painter unless you are able to excercise your techne. Likewise, it is no good being an institution if you can be crushed by other institutions. No, that has nothing to do with the Techne itself. You're making a prescriptive assumption about what someone should do, not an observation about the skills they have. I can be a fantastic moneymaker and completely shit at what I do. I'll still be well paid, but the quality of my work won't be awesome. I could, conversely, be the best possible basketball player in the world, but have a grand total of zero moneymaking skill and refuse to sign contracts/get scouted/etc. That wouldn't make me any less of a player. It seems to me that only a very bizarre view of history would ever drive a wedge between ruling and money handling... 1) Money handling and the techne of moneymaking are separate things. 2) I would hardly be able to understand the actions of any form of non-coercive leader if I adopted your position. 3) The modern concept of a state or nation did not exist at the time of the writing, which makes importing such a concept of government completely out of the scope of the argument. None of these points addresses my (sustained) assertion that strength is holistic... Again, the point at hand is what "makes" something "right" or "wrong" -- My position is that there is no such thing as something that "makes" an action, skill etc right or wrong except strength. But then you aren't talking about 'strength'. You can pretend moral suasion forms a portion of strength, or that concessions to secure a smaller amount of advantage are strength, but at that point your definition is so broad that you're including the opposite of what your original position inside the scope of your new position. If I accept a purely holistic view as strength, a world perfectly ruled by the moral suasion which flows from a drive to equality, containing a perfectly fair system of governance would be said to be held together and justified by 'strength' too. Since its clear that the opposite was meant in the initial exposition of strength that I objected to (as well as the manner in which Thrasymachus uses it), it falls to me to believe that your objection is sophistry. Anything that's 'right' is 'strong' and anything that's 'strong' creates 'right'. The logic is circular and has no reference to any outside factors, whereas our conception of 'right' does. Even if you decided to talk about 'strength', there's nothing that suggests the opposite, that strength makes an action right or wrong. What it might do, however, is make an action legitimate. That would be the positivist position, which goes to lengths to avoid associating itself with a moral approval or disapproval. Feel free to define what you're talking about if you want to get around the limitations of your current lack of definition. I outlined the argument against the first 2 iterations of Thrasymachus' position, including his rebuttal trying to link moneymaking and other arts, that's all I really set out to do.
L,
This is the problem -- what "standard" is used to describe someones techne as "good" or even a "techne" at all. The only standard I see applicable would be that it achieves what it sets out to do in a superior manner. Superior means that the method of action maximizes potentiality. So a techne-endowed basketball player maximizes the potentiality of a basketball player. You are certainly right that a skilled basketball player may fail to market himself --- but we are only speaking of the strength of his basketball skill -- not the strength of his marketing ability.
The reason I bring up the holism of strength is that skills themselves must be evaluated in relationship to one another -- thus, someone who is skilled with (and possesses) a sword will not be strong enough to defend himself against someone who is skilled with a (and possesses) gun.
When it comes to individuals and nations --- I'm arguing that entities that can be destroyed by other entities are "wrong." In our current framework -- the united states could certainly crush many other nations but there are institutions that are "stronger" than the united states military power. These are nothing but the governing "norms" on the application of force. My position is that the norms that govern the use of force are the product of evolution -- that is, they are the strongest (warfare is certainly less acceptable today that it was in the past).
You are certainly correct that some form of the norms may be accidental -- but that is exactly my point (as it is in Darwinism): There is no such thing as "absolutely fit for survival" -- there is only fit for survival in a particular time and place. Thus, the standard for "right" and "wrong" (for individuals and institutions) should be strong -- meaning (definition): best fit to survive.
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA, to answer you in respective order:
Para 1: ok I thought you'd already have that nailed
Para 2: I can't see where you are coming from. Your first sentence is dangerously phrased. It's hard to understand, it could mean several things. Can you explain what you think could be used to measure the strength of a moral code, or a course of action (because I can't tell what you are referring to)?
Para 3: ok, well I thought your point is that if something is strong it's right.
Para 4: the argumentation necessary to sufficiently validate such assertions is circuitous and irrelevant. In brief, however, I am saying that there is a normal distribution of personalities and moral codes in society, based on humanity's need as a species to have inventors, rulers, moneymakers, fighters, artists, lovers, whatever. You are just a fluctuation in the equation that is a successful species. To such an extent, none of your opinions will ever be more than controlled by your place in this equation, and your place in society.
By calling you a yang, I am calling you destructive. The male side of the coin of humanity = destruction, creation, change. The female, ying = stability and compassion. Seeing as humanity has always required both sides to be at balance in society, I fail to see how one side can actually ever be considered right or more valuable. And I don't want to have to go into explaining why humanity requires a balance of change and stability, because I'm sure you catch my drift. If you find the inclusion of terms such as ying, yang and the number crunch idea, then hopefully you can divorce the words from the notion I put forward.
-HamerD
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 12 2009 02:20 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 02:19 TanGeng wrote:On November 12 2009 02:17 Undisputed- wrote:
what the fuck is going on in here lOvOlUNiMEDiA has us in a discussion about philosophy. i see that
It all started when lOvOlUNiMEDiA made a post about how it's his worldview is centered about the ideal of strength, and using that to evaluate goodness of policies.
I'm of the opinion that it's a sound way to look at the world. That philosophical framework describes the basic mechanism for social interaction. Although I tend to think that his view of morality is less sophisticated.
The original post was a 50+ posts ago. Some forumers were up in arms about what an uncaring bastard IOvOIUNiMEDiA - you know the usual thoughtless emotional reflex so often found in people.
|
On November 12 2009 02:22 QibingZero wrote:
I almost didn't think this thread could get any worse, but it has sure managed. Taking Nietzsche's 'morality' as anything other than a critique on the prevalence of religious morality at the time is absolutely insane. Furthermore, extending it to a single portion of today's politics (health care) is worthless, as Nietzsche very much used it as a critique against democracy in the first place. Face it - you have issue with the structure of society itself, not simply health care. Your position is completely disingenuous in this thread, and brings nothing of purpose to the discussion.
I wonder, though, if you've ever considered you might be born the same person under different circumstances, and how those would change what you would become. Obviously, it's not equally easy for the same person to obtain the same power regardless of in which elements he's introduced to the world. Would you accept the fact that you would be weaker than someone else based on factors completely separate from your individual being? Along the same lines, do you accept the fact that the children of the 'strong' automatically gain a large portion of that power, even if they obtain the 'worst' genetics of their parents? If everyone does not have an equal chance at obtaining strength, how can it possibly be a factor in determining morality?
I find it hard to believe your position is not just simply nihilism.
QibingZero, my friend,
Your understanding of Nietzsche's project is limited. His primary target was not Christians -- they were simply a symptom of the root cause --Pessimists-- (the pinnacle of pessimism was Schopenhauer). If you look at Nietzsche's work this will be clear. Or you can look to academic works like C. Janaway's "Willing and Nothingness" which lay out this connection baldly.
I discuss your "what if you were born as the weak one" example earlier. My reply is, "but I'm not." Your reply is "that's because your lucky." My reply is, "Fine. What's your point?" Your reply is "But it's not fair!" My reply is, " What does fairness have to do with it? Of course the weak ones will appeal to "fairness" It is their strongest move! They find themselves in a position of weakness and are left with no recourse but to damn strength! Of course I agree it would suck to be weak. Thus, I'll do all I can to stay strong!"
|
On November 12 2009 02:28 Mischy wrote:
lOvOlUNiMEDiA, to answer you in respective order:
Para 1: ok I thought you'd already have that nailed
Para 2: I can't see where you are coming from. Your first sentence is dangerously phrased. It's hard to understand, it could mean several things. Can you explain what you think could be used to measure the strength of a moral code, or a course of action (because I can't tell what you are referring to)?
Para 3: ok, well I thought your point is that if something is strong it's right.
Para 4: the argumentation necessary to sufficiently validate such assertions is circuitous and irrelevant. In brief, however, I am saying that there is a normal distribution of personalities and moral codes in society, based on humanity's need as a species to have inventors, rulers, moneymakers, fighters, artists, lovers, whatever. You are just a fluctuation in the equation that is a successful species. To such an extent, none of your opinions will ever be more than controlled by your place in this equation, and your place in society.
By calling you a yang, I am calling you destructive. The male side of the coin of humanity = destruction, creation, change. The female, ying = stability and compassion. Seeing as humanity has always required both sides to be at balance in society, I fail to see how one side can actually ever be considered right or more valuable. And I don't want to have to go into explaining why humanity requires a balance of change and stability, because I'm sure you catch my drift. If you find the inclusion of terms such as ying, yang and the number crunch idea, then hopefully you can divorce the words from the notion I put forward.
-HamerD
You are a pessimist. Your view is that ---volition--- & ---spirit--- count for nothing but instead are determined by the needs of some cosmic human species. Your assertions are groundless or meaningless. I'll let you pick which.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
