This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.


Postby agirl » Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:55 pm

everywhere revolutionaries; nowhere revolution.

guy debord

do actions speak louder then words? should we be instigation revolution rather then just planning it, and, if so, is it really going to change anything?

is revolution in the 21st century no more then just a concept?
User avatar
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 1:00 am

Postby maimed » Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:38 pm

Do actions speek louder than words? no the both get ignored by the majority
is it really going to change anything? No revolution has never changed anything there has and will always be the HAVES and HAVE NOTS, revolution just replaces the top with the bottom, other than that the society stays the same.
should we be instigation revolution rather then just planning it? Forget revolution. the problem as i see it is that revolutionaries always want to make a new society and they think they have an idea of how things should work. The problem is that they have only experienced the society they are trying to change and that society is the only template they know for how things can work so after the revolution things eventually fall back into the old template template
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 4:11 am

Postby JP » Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:41 pm

I like that quote Louise. So true. :)

I've just finished reading "Notes From The Underground" by Dostoevsky and, as he says, even if we were to find ourselves in the so called "Crystal Palace" - a utopia - we'd be naturally be inclined to destroy it, to disrupt its balance, purely from a position of boredom. It's hard to explain in a short space, but he uses this irrational side of the human psyche - the self-destructive side - as an argument against the advocates of staunch rationalism in his day, and, in doing so, attempts to portray the human being as an animal just as appreciative of destruction and chaos as he is of all that he has created.

Even if we were living in a utopia (which I in no way believe we are btw) we would not reaslise it, and we would destroy it and have it usurped by a different system, simply because we tire of the rational, that which is "right".

It's the human way. ;)
The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
User avatar
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby cba1067950 » Thu Aug 08, 2002 7:45 am

Well that all depends on how you define utopia. Some people would find predictability enjoyable while others would destroy it due to boredom. My idea of a utopia would be one that accomodates all people. A utopia would have to be flexible because people are unpredictable for the most part. You could have a designated destruction zone for the masses of people to destroy things. Which is an idea I came up with. Would it be cool for people to have ungoverned areas of land where people could go and do whatever they wanted? Also I wonder if you cut up the land into areas designed for specific types of environment able to please everyone would they all be happy? Probably not and then there is funding which would be the biggest problem but I like to run test utopias in my head. Which reminds me think it's a good idea to set up interactive experimental governments on the internet? I think it would be a good idea for the progress of governments to run a bunch. If they fail then fix them. Well I think it would help us with our government atleast.
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 5:24 am
Location: New York

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]