RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

NorthernGent -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 1:13:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Perhaps we should initiate a new thread to address the Nature vs. Nurture topic, so as to avoid a hijack of the OP's topic.



Subfever, hijack maybe but I'll have a go at this:

Hobbes believed that the human state of nature was one of fear, war and envy.

In contrast, Rousseau believed human beings were essentially good and corrupted by society.

The difference? Hobbes was born in an area of religious and civil strife; Rousseau was embued with the enlightement spirit that assumed that a better world was round the corner.

Consequently, I'd go with human beings being a product of the situation (look at Sartre, Locke and Heidegger to make the point), which I think is a point you made earlier. Human beings are easily directed, and we don't have anything like the sense of self that we'd like to think.

And following on from this, we have arrived at a situation where you have a system like you have in the US and we have a similar version in England. That system being that human beings are unpredicatable due to being imbued with all sorts of qualities and characteristics, and the conclusion is that we're better off with a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more because anything else would lead us to a destructive existence, e.g. Communism, where we fool ourselves into thinking we're virtuous human beings who just want to make people free, and next thing you know we're holding a gun to people's heads in order to force them to be free because the ends justify the means.



Sanity -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 2:00:26 PM)


Oh, the likes have been seen alright but incredibly the hard learned lessons have been all but forgotten.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desiertoperro
Nope, all of our evolutionary cousins (apes)and all carnivores kill (murder) for food and terrirtory, and employ violence on a regular basis.

These activities were being done by our ancestors long before we became human or had any sort of "culture".



and how exactly would one go about re socialising the entire human race?

Other than a brutal totalitarianism (for generations) the likes of which have never been seen before?



desiertoperro -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 2:03:44 PM)

Sanity, you messed up the quote function, and are incorrectly putting words to me.

Please edit it.

And I stand by what I said, to actually change things would require a totalitarianism that would make the Soviets or Chicoms, even the Khmer Rouge, cringe.



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 4:34:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Yes. What exactly is "human nature"? It seems reasonable to me that whatever qualities define 'human nature' are qualities that must be shared by all humans. Sorry no exceptions allowed. To come up with such a quality is a lot more difficult than it sounds ......

So what exactly is human nature?




The strict definition of human nature is: the sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans.

In my opinion, that sum is far less than most of us have been conditioned to believe.


Yes. That's the dictionary definition. The Oxford Dictionary Online doesn't offer any examples to illustrate the meaning of the term, which is unusual for it. So that rather begs the question doesn't it?

Can we have an example of one of those 'qualities or traits' any one please? Is there anything that all humans share that is species specific? Given how everyday the term human nature is, how often it's used, you'd think it would be an elementary matter to offer just one quality or trait that illustrates, that gives substance to the term human nature.

In short, does the concept of 'human nature' have any substance, any meaning? Or is it just another empty myth?



kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 4:52:49 PM)

If someone takes something from you that you worked hard to get… what would be your reaction?

If someone larger than you attacked your child… what would be your reaction?

When your mother or father passes away…what will be your reaction?

Yes there have been and will be different reactions by different people to the above examples but most people will react in the same way no matter the environment they were raised in.

Human nature is no myth … it is very predictable and consistent.

Even NorthernGent’s examples are predictable through the study of our nature and politicians depend on our human reactions to lead us by the nose.

By our very natures we will tend to agree with our neighbors so I would not call it easy to lead so much as desire to be part of the herd.

Butch



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 5:04:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Subfever, hijack maybe but I'll have a go at this:


That system being that human beings are unpredicatable due to being imbued with all sorts of qualities and characteristics, and the conclusion is that we're better off with a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more because anything else would lead us to a destructive existence, e.g. Communism, where we fool ourselves into thinking we're virtuous human beings who just want to make people free, and next thing you know we're holding a gun to people's heads in order to force them to be free because the ends justify the means.


Surely there's a better response to the dangers of absolutism than the moral nihilism your post implies (if I have understood it correctly).

Indeed, if all humans are fit for is "a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more" why not just put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger now? Such a bleak existence is hardly worth consideration is it?

Please excuse if I have misunderstood, but it seems to me that your perspective either abandons the possibility of virtue and/or ideals to avoid the inherent dangers of absolutism or throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Sorry but I can't accept that these are the only options available. Human unpredictability doesn't lead directly to moral nihilism does it?



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 6:34:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

If someone takes something from you that you worked hard to get… what would be your reaction?

If someone larger than you attacked your child… what would be your reaction?

When your mother or father passes away…what will be your reaction?

Yes there have been and will be different reactions by different people to the above examples but most people will react in the same way no matter the environment they were raised in.

Human nature is no myth … it is very predictable and consistent.

Butch

Your examples are interesting but unfortunately they all apply to the animal kingdom as well as our world - for instance, lionesses don't take kindly to others approaching their cubs. Thus your examples fail the 'species specific' test. Also, it is inadequate that "most people" share a quality, trait or behaviour. If that is the case then we can talk about the 'natures of most people' but not human nature.

For something to qualify as human nature it has to be something that all humans share, and something that only humans share. Unless these two criteria are met, it's not human nature, it's something else.



kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 7:01:27 PM)

What makes you think we are any different then any other animal in our basic instincts? Because one species has a trait does not mean another species can't have the same valid trait does it?


In all my posts all the traits I've listed are human...if a lion shares some then what does that mean?...Nothing except we share traits.


You keep trying to point out one trait we all have ...well stubbornness...[:D]

Butch



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 8:18:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

What makes you think we are any different then any other animal in our basic instincts? Because one species has a trait does not mean another species can't have the same valid trait does it?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking for an example of what 'human nature' means. I'm insisting that any example must meet this test: it has to be shared by all humans and shared only by humans. I'm saying if it fails to meet these criteria it must be something else, not human nature.

quote:

In all my posts all the traits I've listed are human...if a lion shares some then what does that mean?...Nothing except we share traits.

It means that the traits you mentioned belong to more than just humans - so perhaps animal nature might be a more accurate description.
quote:


You keep trying to point out one trait we all have ...well stubbornness...[:D]

lol Good try. Why am I getting the impression you are as stubborn as a mule? [:D]



eihwaz -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 8:46:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For something to qualify as human nature it has to be something that all humans share, and something that only humans share. Unless these two criteria are met, it's not human nature, it's something else.

It would seem to me that 'human nature' encompasses a unique aggregate of traits, rather than an aggregate of unique traits.



subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 10:26:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Can't agree with you here... It is in our nature to kill ..I feel for you if you can't understand this...


If you lived a generation or two after scarcity has been eliminated and all basic human needs are provided for without obligation, critical thinking is a focus of education... politics, religion, war, and disease have all ceased to exist... and this has been your environmental conditioning... who would you want to kill, and for what purpose?

quote:

There is no such thing as nurture when it comes to killing.


I couldn't disagree with you more.

quote:

ps...[:D]... does that mean you agree with the rest of my statement.


LOL ... good one... [:D]



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 10:37:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For something to qualify as human nature it has to be something that all humans share, and something that only humans share. Unless these two criteria are met, it's not human nature, it's something else.

It would seem to me that 'human nature' encompasses a unique aggregate of traits, rather than an aggregate of unique traits.


This strikes me as an intriguing response. I would love to hear you develop this perspective.



subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 10:41:29 PM)

quote:

Nope, all of our evolutionary cousins (apes)and all carnivores kill (murder) for food and terrirtory, and employ violence on a regular basis. These activities were being done by our ancestors long before we became human or had any sort of "culture".


Carnivores have no choice but to kill for survival. Territory is linked to scarcity. Humans have an evolved capacity for logic, and now possess the technology to eliminate scarcity.

(My apologies to the OP for this full-blown hijack.)



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 10:53:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

tweakabelle
The shift from say, monoculture in agriculture, to permaculture* systems is one example of the change in thinking I'd like to see.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

quote:

subfever
The wiki article was delightful to read.

This seems like an ideal system for the ecology. Would it support the world's population?


Isn't permaculture a wonderful idea! It's one of the purest practical applications of knowledge and wisdom I've encountered. Its principles are universal yet each application will be local, specific and unique. And it's almost impossible to commercialise on a large scale.

My understanding is that its far more productive than monoculture methods. It also opens up land unsuitable for monoculture farming for productive purposes. It is designed for small local applications and I'm afraid I don't know whether it performs as well on larger scales. Though it's not immediately obvious to me that there's any reason why it shouldn't.

Apologies for not responding earlier. I missed your post first time round.



subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 11:07:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Perhaps we should initiate a new thread to address the Nature vs. Nurture topic, so as to avoid a hijack of the OP's topic.



Subfever, hijack maybe but I'll have a go at this:

Hobbes believed that the human state of nature was one of fear, war and envy.

In contrast, Rousseau believed human beings were essentially good and corrupted by society.

The difference? Hobbes was born in an area of religious and civil strife; Rousseau was embued with the enlightement spirit that assumed that a better world was round the corner.

Consequently, I'd go with human beings being a product of the situation (look at Sartre, Locke and Heidegger to make the point), which I think is a point you made earlier. Human beings are easily directed, and we don't have anything like the sense of self that we'd like to think.



So far we're on the same page here, that humans are a product of their environments. I thank you for your fine example.

quote:

And following on from this, we have arrived at a situation where you have a system like you have in the US and we have a similar version in England. That system being that human beings are unpredicatable due to being imbued with all sorts of qualities and characteristics, and the conclusion is that we're better off with a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more because anything else would lead us to a destructive existence, e.g. Communism, where we fool ourselves into thinking we're virtuous human beings who just want to make people free, and next thing you know we're holding a gun to people's heads in order to force them to be free because the ends justify the means.


While I'm not 100% sure who's conclusion you're referring to, due to your previous comments, I'm assuming you're referring to the masses at large.

In my opinion, the masses have been well-conditioned to knee-jerk responses to any philosophy that resembles collectivism... much in the same way we've been conditioned to quickly label someone to the opposing political party if they're expressing anything that is contrary to our political philosophy. Also, fear of the unknown is a powerful force that channels people into complacency.

If I've missed your point, please do elaborate some. I'm a bit bushed here tonight, and not at the top of my game, so-to-speak.



subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/18/2011 11:41:39 PM)

quote:

Can we have an example of one of those 'qualities or traits' any one please? Is there anything that all humans share that is species specific? Given how everyday the term human nature is, how often it's used, you'd think it would be an elementary matter to offer just one quality or trait that illustrates, that gives substance to the term human nature.

In short, does the concept of 'human nature' have any substance, any meaning? Or is it just another empty myth?



That's a good question, since I quickly noticed that the examples which came to the top of my head also apply to most of the animal kingdom.

For examples, it is human nature to do what is perceived as necessary to survive, which includes to breath, eat, sleep, avoid pain/injury, procreate, protect offspring, etc. It's also human nature to communicate, create, seek pleasure, associate, etc.

Well... that's it for tonight. I can barely keep my eyes open. More tomorrow... :-)



Hippiekinkster -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 3:23:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For something to qualify as human nature it has to be something that all humans share, and something that only humans share. Unless these two criteria are met, it's not human nature, it's something else.

It would seem to me that 'human nature' encompasses a unique aggregate of traits, rather than an aggregate of unique traits.


This strikes me as an intriguing response. I would love to hear you develop this perspective.
Agreed. This is where the ability to draw Venn diagrams would be useful.

There is the superset of all traits possessed by all animals. There is a subset of those traits, composed of the traits possessed only by humans. Humans possess a combination of the two sets. Hence the unique aggregation of traits.

A perceptive observation.



tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 5:16:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For something to qualify as human nature it has to be something that all humans share, and something that only humans share. Unless these two criteria are met, it's not human nature, it's something else.

It would seem to me that 'human nature' encompasses a unique aggregate of traits, rather than an aggregate of unique traits.


This strikes me as an intriguing response. I would love to hear you develop this perspective.
Agreed. This is where the ability to draw Venn diagrams would be useful.

There is the superset of all traits possessed by all animals. There is a subset of those traits, composed of the traits possessed only by humans. Humans possess a combination of the two sets. Hence the unique aggregation of traits.

A perceptive observation.


Perhaps. I'm yet to be convinced at this point. The subset would have to be composed of the traits possessed only by all humans. If that subset comprises of zero, which seems to be the case so far, the exercise would be fruitless wouldn't it?

Edited to add: If someone can nominate a trait or traits or an aggregate of traits that will satisfy the terms of the subset, then the initial question I posed will have been answered. So it seems at this point this approach is unlikely to help.



Termyn8or -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 8:20:40 AM)

FR

Religion is tribal in nature. Nationalism is tribal in nature. A tribe is like a pack, like a pack of wolves. Certain members of a species decide to stop fighting among themselves and work together.

Animals are probably smarter than humans because they fight among themselves less and don't take to believing in some higher power. Their power is in themselves and their group and they know it.

And they choose leaders differently, maybe we could learn a few things. Maybe Obama and McCain should've duked it out, out in the parking lot rather than having all this voting shit. I think the results would've been the same. Maybe the "commies" have it right - "I am the boss because I CAN be". When you get your shit together and can defeat me, THEN you can be the boss. Who would you prefer for  dictator ? I think it should be me. But until and unless I am bad enough to take that power, someone else is boss.

Now you have good bosses and bad bosses. The structure of the organisation really doesn't matter all that much. As boss, one can change that structure. As dictator, I could take your shit and give it to my friends, or I can let you keep it. I can also take from others and give it to you. However that is not the trend.

This is where the human race is so fucked up. We fight wars and see no profit from it, save for the very few. In a rat pack, they all eat. In a wolf pack they all eat. In a pack of animals when it's dinnertime of course come and get it, edge your way in if you have to but we are not going to stop you. That is not generally true of human leaders, if you can call them human.

Hitler was half nuts, so how did he gain power ? He took care of his people, and because of that they were willing to die for the cause. You can't draft too many people, because there comes a time when they just won't respond to your "invitation". If you think using an animal analogy to guage human behavior is incorrect, you need glasses. Look at them.

I'm reminded of the words to a song by Fleetwood Mac - "Only creatures that are on their way poison their own well". The events in my lifetime indicate that humans are nowhere near that smart. Just look at the last fifty years of history in this country.

You and I are pack animals. Observe animals for a better view. And like the deer on that island in an article I posted long ago, when there are too many of us, the stress increases naturally. We die off. It was proven in that study that this has nothing to do with the availability of resources. It is an animal trait. It is a human trait.

I don't remember where, but I saw a vid of a dog. Another dog had been hit by a car on the highway. This dog in the video risked it's life to drag it's hurt "fellow" off the road. Animals sometimes adopt cubs/pups whatever.

This is all a struggle because we seem to be unable to connect like that most of the time. I am not saying that we are not much better than animals, I am saying that we are no better than animals at all, and perhaps not as "good".

T^T



kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 8:26:06 AM)

quote:

Animals are probably smarter than humans because they fight among themselves less and don't take to believing in some higher power. Their power is in themselves and their group and they know it.


Termy...and you know this....how



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875