|
On April 28 2010 00:13 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Perhaps you are blind to your own living condition. Do you live alone? Grow and/or hunt your own food? Weave your own textiles and clothes? Prepare your own safe drinking water? Manufacture your own luxury goods?
In many cases collectivism provides a benefit to all who take part. Surely you were not coerced into going to the market and buying a bag of potatoes. In fact, I would wager a guess that you are unable to successfully perform any of the tasks I listed above sufficiently enough to survive outside of modern society. In this case you ought to value the society over yourself, since the society is the collective providing you with the means to survive.
The market is not a product of collectivist action... thats individual, interpersonal action, be it mutual, contractual, etc.
|
On April 28 2010 00:14 SirGlinG wrote:
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
It's in our nature to think we know. It's in our culture to judge other culture from our own cultures perspective.
So it's quite understandable that you consider the need of leadership this way but there are cultures which run smoothly without our kind of leadership.
Without common goals nothing is accomplished. Is perhaps a better way to put it.
But we can still accomplish with individual goals.
sorry I'm not going to answer this post because I don't know what you wrote
but if collectivists were half as humble as you, and not force anyone to do anything, then the individuals will would prevail, because the collectivists would not do anything to enforce "the common good"
which would be good imo ofc
|
On April 28 2010 00:28 Floophead_III wrote:
Interesting read, though I do have to disagree on the basis of #4:
Stupid people make actions that do not have a discernible benefit. Stupidity is unpredictable and leads to people doing things which result in a net harm to themselves and others. #4 is only valid assuming people are smart enough to make decisions that are beneficial to themselves, which to be honest, is a pretty big leap of faith.
You may say that "to the best of his knowledge" covers this. However, I would argue that no amount of knowledge can keep people from doing dumb things. People still smoke all the time knowing that it causes cancer.
Whether intelligence is a matter of genetics exclusively remains a subject for another discussion, but this argument cannot be airtight until you address that concern.
Yes that is a fair concern.
but men will always be ignorant to something, because they cannot know everything
our brains would have to be infinitely large, as large as the universe itself perhaps
so my rebuttal is, with what standard do you judge man to be stupid? To the degree of a god? Of a plant? a dog?
I am one to think that man are smart enough to act rationally 99% of the time, and yes, to the best of his knowledge. But who are you to blame that he is dumb?
Intelligence can only be defined with a goal and degree in mind. So if you're calling the majority of mankind dumb, I say your standards are too high, or perhaps more likely, your goals are not the same as other people
What if smokers want to have or do not care to have lung cancer?
damn I actually wrote this to someone else already.
I'm officially repeating myself :/ I'm so dumb
|
On April 28 2010 00:36 KissBlade wrote:
At one point, you discussed that a collectivist is wrong when he assumes he cannot know what's best for anyone and any decisions thereafter made will be just as beneficial under individualism as it would be collectivism. However, I felt I should point out, situations such as The Prisoners' Dilemma is only enforced under individualism whereas collectivism would ensure a much greater outcome. Overall, I feel your argument is too biased towards individualism (understandably so in the US despite certain governmental changes ...).
The prisoners dillema is actually a big big evidence in favor of individualism.
You'd know that people who initiate cooperatively and reciprocate defections and coops alike will have a much better chance of cooperating with other cooperative individuals, and defect against uncooperative ones.
But anyway, what you're saying is.. if someone could force everyone to be cooperative, then everyone would be better off..? Better off for what goal?
Case is that some don't believe that everyone being better off will benefit him. that's why they steal, lie, murder, etc. So is it right for you to force them to adhere to your means, if you know that such cooperative means will bring them more resources later on?
On those grounds, thats the thing, it is not. Because you don't ultimately know the future, you don't know if everyone will be better off. It is assumed on your experience that this is so, but you don't. And forcing people to do things is hardly cooperating anyways, It's the opposite of cooperation, yeah?
In fact I would argue that, by you forcing them to cooperate, it's actually a defection on them, by your part.
Prisoners dilemma is sweet tho
|
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
Yurebis: hi
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
You seem seduced by the idea that everything can be accounted for by studying the biology/chemistry of the human body. While it is true that every action has a bilogical counterpart, and every thought/idea must have some biological "representation" or other manifestation, it is not a very feasible approach to only endeavour into this layer of analysis, as output/input is mediated in the interspace of individuals. For this reason interpersonal behavior is as significant a source of information as the body of the individual itself. I'm a determinist but I argue on free will grounds. I know it's confusing but as you may not I haven't talked science once, and if I did everyone would ignore me anyways because I don't know shit really
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
On a related note, the whole distinction between individual and other is only an abstraction. Noone is ever free of other's influence (if only understood a bit broad: that is, representations of outside influence). I consider myself a determinist like you, that doesn't mean however, that we are determined only through intropersonal means.
k
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
Ideas founded interpersonally have a great deal of influence on the individual mind. That is not to say that we represent them internally in the same way as the next person (we can't be sure of exact agreement on definitions/interpretations), but they were still formed "out there" and now has an impact "in here". If you want to say that only because this has a individual representation (that is: is present in the individual mind) it isn't collective, then be my guest, it just means you either don't agree with everyone else on the use of that word, or you chose a different layer of analysis. out there you mean, on other people's heads
semantics
I would have defined collectivism in the OP but really I didn't think it'd be necessary
if someone dared to define collectivism anyway they'd probably be able to see the bs it is.
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
You seem very absorbed with the idea of objectivity and "real" science (SCIENCE?), which is frankly rather odd as you go out of your way to express that an individual can only understand the world subjectively. I think you should revise your understainding of knowledge as it seems very inconsistent. When the social sciences are not exact, it is because they concern themselves with matters that can't be meaningfully operationalized, but thankfully one do not need to have 100% sure knowledge in order to act purposefully. Just like one individual don't need to be 100% sure what the next person wants/thinks in order to respond to it.
technically there can't ever be a 100% objective positive truth (god exists, god does not exist), only objective falsification can be 100% true
I don't have that much trouble understanding the basics of epistemology but let me say that I don't feel I'm equivocating when I say you nor anyone else can get inside my head.
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote:
I won't tell you how to understand knowledge, as you can only adapt a view consistent with the rest of your world view, I suppose. My aproach is that knowledge is simply the theory that currently best accounts for the widest range of cases.
positivist right
well try some critical rationalism imo
|
On April 28 2010 00:57 o[twist] wrote:
stopped reading when i read "the collective is just a set of individuals" - if you start with something that wrong, whatever you end up with will be pretty messed up.
how can it be anything else?
|
On April 28 2010 01:17 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 18:24 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote:
Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe, I don't think this makes any sense at all. Can you move an object with your mind? would be pretty sweet but I'm willing to say no Maybe I am misunderstanding your original sentence: Show nested quote +Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe, It seems to imply that absent of human action, there is stagnancy. From a purely scientific viewpoint this can be seen as incorrect, e.g. a star burns independent of human action, and regardless of whether or not we observe it burning. Parts of the universe were changing before man stood up, and they will continue changing whenever man decides he's had enough of this place and calls it quits. It also suggests that humans are separate from the universe, which were are not. We are a self aware piece of it. We don't act upon the universe, the universe acts upon itself.
OOoh ok I apologize.
I mean, you know what I meant
sorry.
On April 28 2010 01:17 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 18:24 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote:
Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe, I don't think this makes any sense at all. Can you move an object with your mind? would be pretty sweet but I'm willing to say no how does that relate when you say things it seems like they make sense to you, but they end up not making sense to other people
my bad
the wording was off
ok what I meant is...
humans can only change the world through action
which is the obvious thing to say
edited op
|
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
|
Take a look at "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. It seems that man in fact does behave irrational, and predictably so. Marketing companies have known this for ages and have been cleverly manipulating us to make irrational decisions. This can be an argument for paternalism.
On the other hand, people often assume that whatever cannot be solved on the market, can be solved by the government. But government officials are not benelovent gods, they are both rational in that they seek their own personal gain, and they make the same predictable irrational mistakes as the rest of us. Additionally, in a democracy, they are elected by an irrational populace.
So setting up governmental institutions to take care of things doesn't necessary solve every problem, and it may make some of them significantly worse.
|
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything?
May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
|
Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2995525?cookieSet=1
(this is not new)
|
On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are. ...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too. there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets. I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
|
On April 28 2010 03:33 Phrujbaz wrote:
Take a look at "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. It seems that man in fact does behave irrational, and predictably so. Marketing companies have known this for ages and have been cleverly manipulating us to make irrational decisions. This can be an argument for paternalism. If you could be so kind as to give me a synopsis of its premises id answer to that but I'm sorry to say I hardly even read the books that interest me, much less the ones that do not...
Going in that tangent a bit, marketing companies may have known how to supply the consumer on what they deeply desired, which does not in any way negate that whatever they bought may after all be the best perceived means for their goals.
Marketing is no scam, and even if it was, it does not disprove that people look to "maximize their utility" (tm)
On April 28 2010 03:33 Phrujbaz wrote:
On the other hand, people often assume that whatever cannot be solved on the market, can be solved by the government. But government officials are not benelovent gods, they are both rational in that they seek their own personal gain, and they make the same predictable irrational mistakes as the rest of us. Additionally, in a democracy, they are elected by an irrational populace.
So setting up governmental institutions to take care of things doesn't necessary solve every problem, and it may make some of them significantly worse.
Yeah, even if one concedes that people are considerably irrational (I don't concede that, fu), they seem to throw everything away when they choose a fellow human to lead not only themselves but forcefully, their neighbors.
|
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote:Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2995525?cookieSet=1(this is not new)
ok, and are individuals in a human society... "consist of a unified protoplast that is chambered into cells"?
I mean, we weren't even talking about plant cells, and even if we were, then the analogy wouldn't fit anyways?
How is an individual physically attached to another in society? Do we have invisible umbilical cords tying us together?
|
On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are. ...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too. there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets. I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
|
On April 28 2010 03:44 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are. ...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too. there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets. I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here? isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another
because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription
the only thing that has goals are rational beings
individuals
|
On April 28 2010 03:49 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are. ...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too. there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets. I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
|
On April 28 2010 03:48 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote:Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2995525?cookieSet=1(this is not new) ok, and are individuals in a human society... "consist of a unified protoplast that is chambered into cells"? I mean, we weren't even talking about plant cells, and even if we were, then the analogy wouldn't fit anyways? How is an individual physically attached to another in society? Do we have invisible umbilical cords tying us together?
Read the article or don't
Responding before reading it is pointless
|
On April 28 2010 03:53 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:49 o[twist] wrote:On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are. ...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too. there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets. I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively. I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
|
On April 28 2010 03:54 Three wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:48 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote:Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2995525?cookieSet=1(this is not new) ok, and are individuals in a human society... "consist of a unified protoplast that is chambered into cells"? I mean, we weren't even talking about plant cells, and even if we were, then the analogy wouldn't fit anyways? How is an individual physically attached to another in society? Do we have invisible umbilical cords tying us together? Read the article or don't Responding before reading it is pointless
If you want to prove that my biology sucks, I concede, it does suck
Sorry I'm not going to read that. It's completely unrelated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
