Only you, PK (from your demonstrations on this forum for years … not prejudiced, not biased).
K:as I have already stated, I have biases and prejudices. Try reading this thread again to see this.
What I am saying is, everyone and everyone by definition includes me has biases and prejudices.
the goal seems to be to limit the amount of bias one has and to do so requires some method.
I suggest reading others who have a different bias and prejudices and use that to limit one’s own
biases. Other methods exist.
Kropotkin
That (bolded) is your prejudice, accusation, and condemnation of people whom you have never met.
I am not arguing that YOU are not prejudice. I am pointing out that you are demonstrating your prejudice … again.
Let me call you on your shit. If this was just for you, why post it here, why not type it up in MS Word or scribe it out in a journal. You reach for others to intrude into your thoughts. I think that you are just looking for some sort of validation or verification of what you want to believe. Perhaps Aristotle didnt write of those wars because he thought that by preventing knowledge of it that there would be no more wars. Maybe he was afraid or maybe they didnt want philosophy mixing with war in those times. You might be looking to him as great inspiration when he was probably just another man. It is rather vain to post this here and then say that it’s just for you.
After some ugly days of work, I’M BACK.
I see doubters hard at work here and that is ok. I don’t mind.
Because I don’t get worked up about those who doubt anymore than
those who approve. I treat each the same. I write for me. This format
is simply for convenience sake because I have tried other methods and this one
fits best into what I am trying to do, so I use this. If you don’t understand, I really
can’t help you.
Because of work and its detrimental effects on me, I have been thinking about it in terms
of economics and not just work. We have today anyway, a mixed economic system.
The mix is of capitalism and socialism. (is this a complete and faithful representation of
our economic system, nope, but I am not interested in a complete and faithful representation
of our economic system because that is very involved and it doesn’t change anything I say)
We sacrifice millions of humans to continue this economic system. To give you an example whereas
any number of examples exists, I am a checker in a large supermarket chain. As far as the managers and
company goes, I am completely expendable. Once my value decreases, I am gone like yesterday’s garbage.
And yet I have given years (8 as of August 9) and I have damaged my health in numerous ways helping this
company and yet I am still expendable. It is completely irrelevant to the company as to what I want or would
like to achieve, the only thing that matters is my making the company money. Once I don’t do that, poof, gone.
I believe I have value beyond just creating profit for the company but you wouldn’t know it. I am a cog in
the machine. Is my value or even the company’s value just in making a profit? I don’t believe so. And this
is the reason I stand with Marx because I have greater value as a human being than just a profit making machine.
this dehumanization of our modern workers damages not only the worker but damages society. Human value
is linked to economic value and humans have a greater value than just economic. The company and societies
emphasis on the creation of profit is really nothing more than Nihilism, Nihilism carried out society wide.
Let us explore this notion further. Look into the dictionary and see nihilism as: The general rejection of
customary beliefs in morality, religion. But look deeper and see. Is not the exclusion/rejection of
human values such as love, honor, piety, hope, also Nihilism. We see this in our economic system which
excludes/rejects such human values as love and hope as economical unnecessary, unwanted.
To reject such human values is Nihilism. The current economic system in its pursuit of profit has
excluded and rejected human values and thus promotes nihilism. this dark and underlying feeling we
have of impending disaster is really our unconscious understanding that our economic system is
nihilism incarnate. We totter on the brink because we recognize on some level that human values that
we need are excluded and rejected as being unnecessary in the modern pursuit of profit.
Love and honor and hope and dreams have no value in the modern economic system.
Human values have no value in the modern economic system. The only thing that counts
is profits and the creation of enough profits so a small few can increase their value from millions to
billions to multi-billions. We are modern day slaves. Yes, slaves because we cannot escape our system.
we cannot go to some company that doesn’t follow the current economic system because it would go out
of business. We must go to a company that practices and preaches and obeys profit as the final, only goal
desired by business. We have two choices, one work in the modern economic system and be exploited
as cogs in the machines and having no other value or we opt out of the system and thus die.
(to those who claim to have opt out and have no economic footprint, you are simply fooling yourself.
you have an economic footprint which contributes to modern day society, you just don’t know it or pretend
it not to be true. It is there.) The option is to work or die. simple as that. You have no other choice because
for society to exist it must have as many people as possible working in its economic dungeons. creating profits
for our economic overlords, those who benefit from all our work and soak up that profit.
the modern economic system is simply an exercise in nihilism. The modern day denial of human values such
as love, hope, honor, forgiveness, and so many more human values that are denied as unwanted in
our modern economic system.
Kropotkin
Was it any better as a hunter gatherer (I bet if most hunter gatherers experienced modern life, they’d switch places with you in a heartbeat)? Also, what’s wrong with nihilism … or are you confusing nihilism with apathy?
I dunno, I read Kropotkin, and yeah, under conditions of abundance animals can be very egalitarian, but I’m not sure how that’s a newsflash or why anyone would think it says very much about human nature. Maybe it was a newsflash in Kropotkin’s time, and I do credit him for giving us evolutionary psychology. But I’m far more interested in how we behave under pressure. That’s when it’s every man for himself, when we panic like a cornered animal, when we devolve towards superstition, when xenophobia begins to rear its ugly head, etc. etc. And isn’t that our real nature? After all, if you gave a criminal millions of dollars and he decided to quit his life of crime and retire to a tropical island, does that mean he’s a changed man? Did his narcissistic/sociopathic nature magically disappear? No of course not, its just that his greed has been satiated for the moment. Likewise, saying animals behave themselves when they have easy access to everything they need is to say nothing about our true nature. So I don’t find much value in the Kropotkin’s or Rousseau’s of the world (even though they were right in many things they said, it’s just that IMO they didn’t say anything very interesting), although maybe Hobbes exaggerated (and I’m quite sure that we could do better than social contract theory)?
So okay, western civilization sucks, we’re nothing more than slavish sheep, cogs in the capitalist wheel, etc. etc. Yup … you’re probably right. But then, to paraphrase Machiavelli, changing an ingrained system is maybe with hardest thing on earth to try and accomplish, and your chances of success are so tiny, you have to ask yourself … are prepared to accept lifelong misery in exchange for staying true to your values (since that is the likely outcome)?
And is it capitalism or is it something deeper? Was ancient Egypt under the Pharaoh’s better than modernity (I would say probably not, and ancient Egypt long predates modern capitalism)? Or maybe Nietzsche had it right, its really a “will to power” that drives our impulse to subjugate. Or maybe its something even deeper (or something much more simplistic)? Maybe our need for social acceptance, love, sex, etc. (something like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) is the driving force behind our will to power. If that’s true, then it would stand to reason that maybe we could design a more egalitarian socioeconomic system (although, I’m not sure if Marx’s communism is it). Honestly, Marx made plenty of predictions that were flat out wrong (even modern communist philosophers, like Zizek, concede as much), and I’m not a big fan of historicism (unless we’re talking about the sometimes interesting sometimes absurd ways Sartre looked at history, and I do admit that Popper may be gone too far in the other direction). So what is it (that elusive “perfect system”)? I wish I had the answer my friend.
But I do have one thing in common with Kropotkin, I became a biologist (so maybe I subconsciously admire his work) 
I like the way people concede they are cogs in the machine and capitalism sucks
and then almost always go blah, blah, blah… I mean they use those very words, blah, blah,
anyway, the point is to look anew at this. The real problem with the modern age is we cannot
agree that there is a problem little less look to an answer. How do we find the future if we cannot even
agree that there is a problem? We are cogs in a machine, everyone agree and yet few even
see that as a problem. My point of bringing up other economic systems like hunter/gatherer is
to show that capitalism is just a phase, a short term and failed solution to certain questions.
Now what are those questions? How are we to spend our days? Should we spend our days
like the men of old and work all day putting food on the table with no other point to life?
the problem with that is if you look at the numbers, we have less leisure time today than
the vast majority of societies that have existed. In other words, we work harder than societies
like the Greek, Roman, and even the medieval societies that we so look down on. Come think about
it, if we were able to create an objective method of comparing societies based on certain criteria,
such as leisure time, the quality of life, life expectancy, happiness, stress factors that our modern
day world would rank well behind many other societies. (the only one I think we really beat the others
societies on is life expectancy and really, is 70 years of misery really better than 30 years of misery?)
You look at philosophy and you see with each society/people the philosophical question is different.
for example, for the greeks the question was about Arete (excellence) and how was Arete possible and
how was it taught or learned? With each age the question changed. So, for us, what is the question?
We can ask this a couple of different ways, what is the philosophical question or what is the question of
our age? Now to return to us being cogs in the machines, is that the answer our age has given to the
question, how do we live our lives? Every aspect of our lives is an answer to some question.
Philosophy is the answer to the question, what is the meaning of life? Capitalism is the answer to
the question, how do we organize ourselves economically to best make sense? Democracy is the answer
to the question, how do we organize ourselves to best politically? How do we best relate to religion/
spiritual matters, is it by Catholicism, Protestantism, being born again or being atheist? Each answer
we have in the modern age is an answer to a question. so being a cog in the machine is the answer to
what question?
Kropotkin
… (delete)
Yes we’re cogs, but not all in the same way, and I used the term “machine” metaphorically. I think we overrate the system. If it thought itself so impervious to attack, why would it try so hard to suppress dissent? So I think change is possible, but is it probable? I spent years as an activist, and I think all the left wing activism that I played a small part in … has had some effect. But will it matter? We’ll see (incidentally, I think the best activists can do is compel people to think a little deeper, and its effects are usually only felt years after the fact). But ultimately, I’m not much of a Marxist. Not necessarily because I dislike the way he described the problem, it’s more that he viewed capitalism in a special way, something different and far beyond what it really is, just another manifestation of power (in a very long list). I don’t mind calling myself a socialist, which I view as a very broad concept. But I feel like Marx is (at very minimum) less relevant today than he was during the period he was writing. I like Kropotkin, and credit him for giving us evolutionary psychology (sometimes referred to as sociobiology, which I think is a field that although it’s in its infancy right now, has great promise). But I don’t look at these issues in the polarizing way that many of others do. I think, for example, Hobbes made some good points. He probably exaggerated the problem, but I think it’s more a matter of degree (not either/or), and I do think there’s a system out there waiting to be discovered that can play to the best aspects of our nature (much better than any system devised to date), but at the end of the day, I think power relationships are more important than any particular system (be it capitalism or whatever) in terms of understanding the challenges we face in achieving a more egalitarian world.
I think you missed my point which is nihilism is the creation of the system.
Because the system only value profits and ignores, crushes, punishes, all other
values, human values like love, honor, sadness, and this is the real creation of
nihilism in our world. Human being no matter how much they proclaim they
are nihilist and anti-whatever, they still cling to human values even if the value
is negative. Hate is a negative value and yet the system still treats hate like all the other
human values, ignores, crushes and punishes that value and hate is a human value, no different
than love or sadness or honor. To remove the nihilism of our lives doesn’t take a revaluation of
values that Nietzsche wrote of, no, it is simply the removal of the system which is the creator
of Nihilism. The placing of humans into cogs in the machine is just another example of the systems
nihilism. A cog has no function other than being a cog and no need of human values which makes
human life possible. A cog just does it, cog thing. As a cog myself, I just do my thing which is
scan items across a bar code and remember produce codes. I don’t need any human values
to do my cog thing and I will be punished if I exhibit any human values like love, hate, shame,
despair, while doing my cog thing. At one point in time, checkers were required under penalty of
a written notice to smile at all times, no matter what was happening. If you failed to smile, you were
written up. The company dumped this when it was discovered that all that fake smiling freaked customers
out. It was like the stepford workers and it was just that scary. As a cog, I am to demonstrate whatever
the company demands of me, so if it be smiling that is what I do. If it is anger or hate or whatever,
that is my job as a checker to do. Exhibit any other human value other than what is mandated by the company
is punishable up and including loss of job. That is nihilism. the punishment of human values because
they interfered with the prime directive which is profits. Everything is done in the name of profits and
all values that don’t increase profits are eliminated, human values. this is not new by the way.
the middle ages with its emphasis on god also created a system of nihilism because human values
had no value in regards to the ultimate goal which is entering heaven. Denial of human values such
as sex, anger, beauty were at the center of the church during the middle ages. So which ages didn’t have
nihilism at their core? I would say we have had just two and only two ages that was positive and not
nihilists. One was the Greek age of Athens from 490 BC to 400 BC and the second age was the Renaissance.
by the way, both ages loved by the one major critic of nihilism, Nietzsche. Coincidink? I think not.
Kropotkin
I’m not sure about that … this at least seems to represent a redefining of the concept.
Admittedly, very few self-proclaimed nihilists behave consistent with their nihilism (myself included), nonetheless, nihilism has a specific definition.
For instance, it involves a rejection of religious principles, a belief that life is meaningless, etc.
Also keep in mind, Nietzsche worked past his nihilism by creating his own imaginary (to emerge sometime in the future) character, his superman. How much different was this than imagining the second coming of a Jesus like figure (who upon his return, will be a graceful warrior instead of a sage who commits the ultimate act of vicarious sacrifice)?
Also, for Nietzsche, as you point out … our animal is not something to hate, but rather embrace and celebrate (the part of his philosophy I love). Part of our animal is a will to live, and in that vein, the pursuit of science is what helps me find purpose (and science has been pursued under virtually all circumstances, irrespective of the contemporary socioeconomic system). So IMO it’s not enough just to realize that the only thing we can find purpose in is our nature, it’s also important to find ways to exert our nature (this is how IMHO we reach, as Maslow termed it, self-actualization). Whether it’s something like science, or studying a Sartre or Foucault to explore how society and power relationships suppresses our human nature, or whatever, it should be something that puts us on a path towards self-actualization (and I don’t think this is necessarily “system dependent” … at least not for all people).
“We holds these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.”
Words from a minor document to be sure but words we act upon. We have expanded
what the words meant to them which is White, property owning men to each and every one of us
(you cannot backdate prejudice. this means we cannot accuse men of being prejudice or homophobic
in an earlier time because it is a thing for us, certainly not for them.)
“so we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”
all men are created equal which in our language would say “All people are created equal”
Now the second idea which will spot is a simple one which is “one man one vote” which is
just carrying out the first idea that “all men are people created equal” so this means
political we consider all men to be equal, one man, one vote. that is political equality.
We have a third idea and that is justice is equal and we represent that by showing
a statue of justice blindfolded with a scale. So that means justice is about equality.
All men are created equal and thus we hold that politically men are equal and in the eyes of the law
we hold that men are equal.
We hold in voting a majority vote elects. It is rare that in the presidency that the president
who has the lessor amount of votes wins the presidency, (but it happens and another reason to eliminate
the electoral collage as being undemocratic) and we hold that a majority votes holds true in all other elections
in the US from the president down. We hold ourselves as a democracy in which the majority
rules in our own name and elects representatives who speak in our name. (at this point we must hold
to the theory of the practice and not the reality)
So we have equality being practice in the political sphere and in the judicial sphere
but suggest that we have equality in the economics and all hell breaks loose.
But I ask you, why not? Why not have equality in the economic area? in
40 years of studying I have never heard a good reason against equality in the economic sphere
and there are many, many reasons for equality in the economic sphere.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…except economically?
How do you justify equality in political matters and judicial matters and voting matters,
but not economically? We are still clearly held unequal in economic matters. The massive
income inequality in this country proves this. If we are not equal in economics, then
how can we say “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”?
Kropotkin
You have all kinds of theories. These theories try to explain or understand some
aspect of our lives for example you have Darwin’s theory of Evolution. It explains
the process of evolution in terms that if thought about makes sense. If you combine
the elements of evolution which are time, chance, environment and birth ( the random elements
of birth which create traits which are useful in adaptation for the survival of the individual which
then are passed on) These factors are considered important factors in this process of evolution
however are they the only factors, no, are they the complete factors, no, is the theory whole and
complete, no. One thing to understand is no matter how much stuff we throw into a theory, it
will never be complete, it will never describe all factors, it will not be accurate. Because all theories
are by their nature incomplete. You cannot at any point in time, ever create a theory which covers
all determining aspects or factors that influence that theory. So evolution is incomplete as a theory,
there are points missing which we sense on some level and it gnaws at us. What does this mean for us?
It means we cannot create a theory which covers all aspects needed to explain that theory. all theories
are incomplete which makes every theory easy to attack, “but you missed this point” can be said
about every theory. Does this mean we cannot even begin to construct theories for no matter how hard
we try, the theory will be incomplete and for lack of a better word, damaged. Well I think we need
to understand how and why we use theories.
I live in a universe which for the most part is understandable to you. I work, I eat lunch, I watch sports
on TV especially the San Francisco Giants. I am sitting down right now in my kitchen drinking a Dr. Pepper,
all these acts are understandable and most likely repeated by you. At no point do we even need a theory
to explain my actions. My work schedule decides when I am there and my days off like today lets
me sit at my kitchen table and post. I can easily go without a theory at this time. I work, I live, I eat and
sleep. Nothing complicated here. so when would I need to have a theory? WHY I go to work. that thought
might create a theory. I work because…For me work takes me away from what I consider important and
valuable. Writing, thinking, reading and yet for some (crazies) work is what is important and valuable.
I work to put food on my table and in the process, I maintain the system of Capitalism which says
by my mundane actions, I am a part of the system which allows everyone who works access to put
food on their table. (is this a complete and accurate description of capitalism, no of course, that isn’t
even possible which is my point) At no point (so far) have we made a moral judgment about people who
work in or believe in this system. However we can use words which are moral judgments about people,
So I use the word Liberal. Now you create the connotation of what a “liberal” means to capitalism.
I use the word “deadbeat”. You would create the connection between the word capitalism and
the word deadbeat. At no point are we, you and me, ever actually have a complete and accurate
description of the words, liberal, deadbeat, capitalism or even moral. Now one might say,
accurately ( however that that is not possible) that it is a sematic, definition, word language issue
and all of it will be cleared up with an use language theories which will make understanding
easier. However we now hit the problem of, no theory is complete or accurate. Even using language
game theory will not allow us to get any closer to understanding of our issue. How do we escape
this problem of our needing theories to explain the universe and yet theories by their incompleteness
and inaccurate descriptions cannot explain the universe.
Kropotkin
If systems are as I suggest, incomplete and inaccurate, then that means the great system builders
such as Hegel are incomplete and inaccurate. So perhaps this explains Nietzsche turn toward
aphorisms and short paragraphs as a means of philosophy.
Kropotkin
Life is a struggle. It is a series of ordering against the natural stream of entropy.
Humans were miserable in the old days with scarcity and no sheltering.
Humans are miserable in the new days with excessive sheltering.
The average modern man is miserable when he works, and miserable if he does not work.
At this time there is a possibility for a new development, to change the human DNA, creating a superspecies, which doesnt need to be miserable as a survival mechanism. In short, saving the world
As always, the solution is not to dismantle the system, or replace it with another broken system, or endlessly argue every day. You work bottom up, you rewrite the core nature of the organisms of the system, and the system will follow
my current project was conceived as a means, an attempt to move philosophy beyond
its current state which is static and basically dead in the water. Philosophy is no longer
relevant in people lives and I wanted to change that, by reinventing if you will, philosophy.
My investigations has discovered why philosophy is DOA and that is because of problem
I have discovered which is, no system is ever complete. All systems, ALL SYSTEMS are incomplete
and incorrect/inaccurate. No matter how much information you try to stuff into a system, it
will never complete it, never accurately describe it. this is the modern problem with philosophy,
no matter what, you cannot have a system that is complete and accurate. this dooms modern philosophy
and leaves us with a major problem. You can discuss aspects of philosophy ( and still be incomplete and
inaccurate) but you can never be able to discuss or encompass the whole of philosophy. Nietzsche realized
this and thus wrote what he did and HOW he did because of it. So how do you discuss philosophy when
you can only cover small portions of it? You can never really cover the whole of what is really needed
to discuss when talking about philosophy. So what aspect is the most important aspect? A system
of philosophy is impossible because it can never be complete or accurate. So now what?
Kropotkin
I already told you. To increase the human potential by modifying their DNA.
So they can learn and understand philosophy on their own. Not by reading and parroting, but by discovering things, all on their own merit. True understanding must be from within. Words cannot convey the full depth
They will understand the universe, science, philosophy, by personal discovery. There will be no need for long courses about Neitzche, because they would have discovered the Neitzche inside of them on their own, becoming the Neitzche, becoming every philosopher, becoming the superphilosopher, surpassing all philosophers and adding more, truly understanding the universe itself
Trying to create a superphilosophy to modern humans…its like trying to run software on bad hardware…first you must upgrade the hardware, anode to cathode…father to son
Which DNA is being modified and what are you “programming” into said DNA?
Be very specific.
Kropotkin
For starters Neanderthals had larger brain capacity than Sapiens so that’s a freebie code to boost start on the right track.
Provided there is fresh bone marrow with some DNA left in it. Well there are some dino bones with fresh marrow so it shouldnt be too hard to find a Neanderthal sample.
If not, well then just find Tesla’s corpse and start there.
Honestly, I think that the neandrathals had more capacity because their brains werent filled with all of our societal crap. If we were to prune that away within our own minds and speak to the cells and atoms we’re comprised of, pretend that they are sentient and aware and knowing, we might find that such genetic manipulation is unnecessary. All that we need to know is a mix of whats inside AND outside our own bodies and each body may hold different secrets so that the analysis of just one would never yield the full truth, thus forcing us to learn how to work together. Not to say we shouldnt genetically enhance our selves through science- Id like to be more fleshed out and have a slightly thicker dick, lol.