Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/20/2011 7:29:50 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Could 'human nature' be another empty meaningless myth?

Literature, music, art, philosophy, science....

K.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/20/2011 9:39:12 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		That leaves it wide open.

Literature. Hmmm, you get more to read in your mailbox every Wednesday than any starving family in Pakistan. But you pay thousands of dollars a year to go to a university to be urged to read hundred year old books.

Music. Hmm, "Get the fuck out, get the fuck out my house BITCH", "Fuck the police fuck the police fuck the police".

Philosophy. Wasn't there a guy nmed Keynes who took care of that ?

Science. Fat is bad, carbs are good. We really did go to the moon, for all the good it did you. And this week the winner is butter over margarine by 1.04 points. Global warming is real, but not really.

Do I have this about covered ?

T^T

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/20/2011 11:26:59 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Could 'human nature' be another empty meaningless myth?

Literature, music, art, philosophy, science....

K.

These areas include some of the greatest of human achievements certainly! But are they 'natural' or aspects of a 'human nature'?

Not all humans are literate, or all human societies literate. Science and philosophy seem to be directly dependent on literacy to exist (or so it seems to me). Literacy and language seem a relatively late inventions on the evolutionary scale. Humans managed to get by for many millenia without any of the above.

Music is a delight but not every human shares a love of music or even a liking of music (not to mention musical talent or ability). And birds are pretty talented at making music too.

So, IMHO, while all your suggestions reflect notable human accomplishments, they seem to fall a little short of being shared by all humans and only by humans, and therefore, of qualifying as 'human nature'.

Edited to add: This is really a shame. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could be defined by some of our most laudable accomplishments?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/20/2011 11:30:46 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 1:11:16 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

while all your suggestions reflect notable human accomplishments, they seem to fall a little short of being shared by all humans and only by humans, and therefore, of qualifying as 'human nature'.

Your seeming insistence that every single human being must be a Dickens and a Mozart and a Chagall, etc., or even a mediocre author and musician and artist, etc., for those aspects of our nature to be truly human strikes me as absurd. And if you think they are not evident "only" among humans, I'd be delighted to have you present any evidence you may have that other terrestrial species have developed literature, music, art, philosophy, and science.

K.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 8:04:15 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Your seeming insistence that every single human being must be a Dickens and a Mozart and a Chagall, etc., or even a mediocre author and musician and artist, etc., for those aspects of our nature to be truly human strikes me as absurd


The test is a very simple one - for something to qualify as human nature, it has to be shared by all humans and only by humans. This standard was suggested, explained and discussed a few pages ago. No one else has expressed any reservations about it.

If you have a more accurate standard by which human nature can be assessed and defined, please state it. It's odd that the alleged 'absurdity' of the test is brought up only after your suggestions were offered and found to be inadequate .... Should any significance be read into that?

Suggesting language-based achievements (eg philosophy, literature) are 'human nature' is problematic. Humans and presumably human nature were around for tens of thousands of years before we developed languages. That's one slight problem to be accounted for. Another is that AFAIK, there's universal agreement that the languages humans use are human inventions. (I've never heard of a contrary suggestion.) To agree that language-based achievements constitute human nature would be to agree that human nature is a human invention. Is that what you wish to argue?

There are far more sophisticated statements of your position available (eg using semiotic analysis) but they too fail to escape the inherent limitations. In short, the inescapable cost of accepting your suggestions seems to be the destruction of the integrity of the concept of human nature. It may be that this outcome is inevitable, but that doesn't appear to be what you want to argue.







< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/21/2011 8:06:39 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 9:20:07 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		Would you not agree that if there were a nature of a species it would not be gained all at once but accumulate over time as a species developed. But the nature at any one time would be no less valid. Otherwise the fact that humans did not start out with language, music, art, philosophy and science does not mean these are not now part of our nature and in combination unique to us exclusively.

You are being much to arbitrary in demanding an accurate standard of human nature. The proof of this nature is around you constantly. It would be impossible for you to survive without an ability to read and understand it even if you can’t quantify it.

You know when to be afraid… by reading human nature.

You know when you are loved… by reading human nature.

You can recognize all manner of emotional states without the benefit of language…by reading human nature.

Human nature does not have to be particular to all members of a species but just to the majority. For instance the need to understand our place in the universe is not in the nature of all but certainly in the vast majority. We tend to come together in groups for protection but also for social interaction… Not all but the majority do.

Finally…we are all, meaning all living creatures, part of this earth experiencing the same demands for survival. Why does it make any difference if traits of the majority of one species matches the traits of another? Does this make the matching traits any less unique to the species?

No a trait is a trait or nature of the species no matter how many other species share it.

Demanding proof of a standard of human nature is like jumping from an airplane without a parachute and demanding proof that the earth is not moving to you rather than you moving to the earth….Neither answer will mean anything in the end…you cannot escape reality…nor human nature whether you can define it or not.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 12:31:45 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The test is a very simple one - for something to qualify as human nature, it has to be shared by all humans and only by humans. This standard was suggested, explained and discussed a few pages ago. No one else has expressed any reservations about it.

There are many things I don't comment on because in my view they are too absurd to deserve notice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It's odd that the alleged 'absurdity' of the test is brought up only after your suggestions were offered and found to be inadequate.... Should any significance be read into that?

You are confusing found to be inadequate by you with "found to be inadquate" period. Should any significance be read into that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

To agree that language-based achievements constitute human nature would be to agree that human nature is a human invention. Is that what you wish to argue?

Well yes, in a manner of speaking. I think what distinguishes human beings is their creativity.

K.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 2:18:54 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well yes, in a manner of speaking. I think what distinguishes human beings is their creativity.

K.


Does a cat understand that 30 divided by 15 is 2? 

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 5:56:37 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:


quote:
quote:


ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

To agree that language-based achievements constitute human nature would be to agree that human nature is a human invention. Is that what you wish to argue?


Well yes, in a manner of speaking. I think what distinguishes human beings is their creativity.

K.


This is a response to kd and NG's points also.

I'm delighted that K agrees human nature is a human invention. To establish that is the point of the exercise from where I sit. We can also agree that creativity is one of the traits that distinguishes human behaviour from animal behaviour. The question is: does it define human nature?

All three of you have made the point, in varying ways, that there are plenty of ways of distinguishing human capacities from those of animals. We can all agree that say, creativity seems to be a human-specific trait.

Issues arise when the second part of the test is applied ie if we insist that the trait(s) have to be shared by all humans. The search for an aspect of human behaviour that is universal has been under way for several decades now. To date, it has been unsuccessful.

So is an ability like creativity shared by all humans? I wouldn't like to have to defend that statement. It seems the preference here is to relax the criterion rather than abandon the concept. That is certainly one way the concept of 'human nature' can be maintained. Changing the rules halfway through the exercise suggests clearly we're engaged in invention doesn't it?

At what price though? The obvious cost is accuracy or rigour. Ignoring/overlooking the contrary evidence when defining things seems to me to be a self-defeating exercise. It is to accept that human nature is defined by the trait(s) of some humans. However, humans generalise as a matter of course so who am I to suggest otherwise?

Accepting that human nature is defined by the trait(s) of some humans inevitably means that there will be some humans who don't possess this trait(s). What would be their status? Should we describe them as lacking human nature? As un-natural? Or perhaps sub-human? Or other-than-human? Does any one want to go down that path? We all know where it goes.

That seems to leave human nature as one of those 'common sense' notions like 'reality'. Everyone knows what it is but no one seems able to identify or define it accurately. Or would it be more accurate to say that everyone has their own idea of what it is? Is it a case of 'you know it's there but you just can't see it'? Or is it one of those things that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean? Unless it's defined clearly, how can any of these possibilities be eliminated? How can we even be certain we're talking about the same thing?

The question 'What is human nature' originally arose in the context of a discussion about whether a particular political goal was feasible. It was claimed that a given goal was 'against human nature'. This is a very strong statement. Most people would not see any point in trying to go against, or argue against human nature - it is (or ought to be) impossible, human nature is usually understood to be something unchangeable. That's certainly what the speaker meant to convey IMHO.

Agreeing that human nature (whatever it means) is a human invention, then it neatly demolishes 'it's against human nature' as a decisive irrefutable argument. What was previously asserted to be impossible might now be well within the range of human potential.

When 'reality' is examined it often turns out to be an assembly of our perceptions. A convenient shorthand that confers objective status on our subjective perceptions of what is around us. When we assemble our individual versions of human nature, are we conferring objective status on our subjective perceptions of human behaviour?

After all we're such a creative lot aren't we? It's in our nature ...... isn't it? (just joking!)

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/21/2011 6:13:29 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 7:31:17 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

We can all agree that say, creativity seems to be a human-specific trait.


No...Other animals are creative

quote:

if we insist that the trait(s) have to be shared by all humans


No No No...Only you insist...I say only a majority over time... through history have to have the trait...or a minority trait that affects the majority.

quote:

So is an ability like creativity shared by all humans


Yes ...how can you prove that any one human has never created anything?

quote:

there will be some humans who don't possess this trait(s). What would be their status


A human in the minority ...however if over time the majority would loose this trait then it would no longer be part of our nature. If a significant number of humans, enough to affect all, exhibit a trait like murder then it is still part of our nature.

The nature of any living creature is not an invention...it is simply the reaction of the majority to a given situation over time…or the reaction of the minority that affect the majority such as criminals.

Butch


< Message edited by kdsub -- 4/21/2011 7:32:15 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 7:54:30 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Your seeming insistence that every single human being must be a Dickens and a Mozart and a Chagall, etc., or even a mediocre author and musician and artist, etc., for those aspects of our nature to be truly human strikes me as absurd


The test is a very simple one - for something to qualify as human nature, it has to be shared by all humans and only by humans. This standard was suggested, explained and discussed a few pages ago. No one else has expressed any reservations about it.

i will. The only thing *all* human beings share with each other is human DNA. i think the same could be said of any species, that all they absolutely share is DNA, and even then you have to qualify it and say that there is considerable variance in the DNA, and that mitochondrial DNA is really a symbiotic relationship with ancient bacteria, and there are genetic mutations that result in an extra chromosome, or one that's missing. By using such a narrow standard you're guaranteeing that no unifying "human" trait can ever be found. i think a better standard would be, what distinguishing traits do humans tend to have naturally? There is absolutely nothing that *all* humans have in common. To extrapolate and say that because of that, the term "human nature" has no meaning, strikes me as absurd as well. If we had to find the one thing that all humans had in common, the term "human" would have no meaning.

Suggesting language-based achievements (eg philosophy, literature) are 'human nature' is problematic. Humans and presumably human nature were around for tens of thousands of years before we developed languages. That's one slight problem to be accounted for.

i can account for it. i'm not a anthropologist, but i would say that, before language achievements, what you had were primates, not human beings.

Another is that AFAIK, there's universal agreement that the languages humans use are human inventions. (I've never heard of a contrary suggestion.) To agree that language-based achievements constitute human nature would be to agree that human nature is a human invention. Is that what you wish to argue?

Sort of. What i wish to argue is that at some point in evolution, primates developed a larger brain and with it the *potential* to become human, to develop those distinguishing traits that we regard as "human nature". It was upon realising that potential that they actually did *become* human from monkeys. So, yes, human nature is an invention, or an accomplishment of the mind. Or, in other words, so far humans alone have had the potential to develop sophisticated language and the other traits we associate with human nature.

If you're saying in order for that claim to be valid i have to be able to identify the *exact* point that primates became "human", or that it had to have happened all at once instead of by degrees over time, i'd say that's pretty unreasonable. Saying that human human nature is a human invention is an oversimplification. The development of any trait is a *process* of becoming one thing from another. It would be more accurate to say human nature is a set of traits that early humans developed over time, just as those fish developed the ability to breathe air and walk on land. You could just as easily call *that* an "invention".


pam

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 8:49:30 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I'm delighted that K agrees human nature is a human invention. To establish that is the point of the exercise... Agreeing that human nature (whatever it means) is a human invention, then it neatly demolishes 'it's against human nature' as a decisive irrefutable argument.

Don't get too carried away. I said, "in a manner of speaking." I do think that creativity is central to our nature, and that we do largely create ourselves. But I don't agree that our nature is so malleable as to render it susceptible of being dismissed as a factor. That misguided view was discredited long ago.

K.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 8:55:33 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kippiekinkster
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.


i don't think there's any one trait possessed only by humans. But there is a *collection* of traits possessed only by humans. For example: Complex cognition, the ability to think theoretically, sophisticated language, sentience, the ability to project into the future, creative thinking, advanced tool making and technology, altruistic behavior, food sharing, the need for companionship, the tendency to mate with one individual for long periods of time, cultural accomplishments such as music, dancing, art, language, the concept of morality and sin, archetypes, the ability to imagine things from another's point of view, long life, high metabolism, etc.

Other species may have one or another of these traits, but only humans tend to have them all.

pam

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 9:10:45 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		Hi pam

I agree that cognition is a trait but when I talk of human nature I am talking the very basic traits. The herd mentality… greed…fear… love…survival…sex. These are traits that are very predictable and are at the very bottom foundation of our species.

Because we are talking of humans I believe they are human nature… Other animals have these same traits but we are not talking of them.

When faced with situations that involve these base natures the majority of humans will react the same way.

Yes as we become more sophisticated our nature becomes more sophisticated as well.

I believe it is not important what makes us human or separates us from other species in this discussion but only how our species react to these very base situations in life that is what determines a human nature.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/21/2011 10:18:14 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
...when I talk of human nature I am talking the very basic traits. The herd mentality… greed…fear… love…survival…sex. These are traits that are very predictable and are at the very bottom foundation of our species...When faced with situations that involve these base natures the majority of humans will react the same way.

i would've called those things animal instincts instead of human nature, but okay.

I believe it is not important what makes us human or separates us from other species in this discussion but only how our species react to these very base situations in life that is what determines a human nature.

Well, technically, this whole human nature tangent is a hijack, but i guess i'm okay with that. Stella seems to have disappeared. And i would agree that part of our humanity is comprised of the animal instincts you refer to.


pam

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/22/2011 5:29:53 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
FR


"Music is a delight but not every human shares a love of music or even a liking of music"

If this is not the most idiotic thing that I have ever read in my entire life, and does not at the same time explain so thoroughly and so simply how utterly dead to reality mankind has gone, and whence our soon demise, I don't know what would.

Music, as what became from the earliest days from vocal expression, that later became spoken language, much later  ...

But thanks to academicians and other clueless folks, music is now relegated as "nice, if you find the time." Leave it to that sort to have the immediate pop music blinders on, just as they get all other input the same way (in my own recent experience there), to judge thousands of years of history by 20, maybe 30 years ago awareness of the world, at best. They deal with the written word and especially philosophy from way back when, while listening to whatever modern crap in their earbuds. I see it all the time in r/l.


Music (that is, "music" not electronic crap) came thousands of years before spoken word, and many thousands of of years further before written word.

Sorry, but lack of interest from simple thinking and apparently quite ill-informed academicians cannot obliterate where our communication and the fount of all other culture came from quite so easily.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 4/22/2011 6:29:10 AM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/22/2011 9:20:52 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		Yes it is a hijack but it has been, to me at least, a very interesting discussion with intelligent people even if we can’t always agree. It is nice to have a talk without the usual bullroar that goes on around here… Of which I am a part of at times I’m afraid.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/22/2011 10:49:57 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline 		Oh no long post alert!!!! I’m not really interested in political Marxism as I think at a systemic level it is unworkable but at a micro level many of the things Marx asserts have a lot of insight and value. Even if the political structures he devised have failed Marx shouldn’t be seen as a failed thinker as ironically many of his ideas permeate capitalism today. Marx as a philosopher even more so has genuine merit although probably not as much as others like Kant, Hume or his philosophical forefather Hegel.

It seems to me that to define human nature is to define all existence itself and our place in it because it would mean little outside the context in which it evolved and in which it exists. IMHO that is a near impossible question to answer! It is something that flummoxed the greatest minds of all time. Another way to look at the issue is through the archaeological record. I thought a lot about this as I did it at Uni.

My own understanding of mans significance over animals is not so much for what he achieved per se but the capacities that are illustrated by said achievements. It was mans biological heritage that allowed these developments. The retractable thumb allowing the use of tools and a capacity for greater vocal dexterity allowing more and more sophisticated communication. It started with Homo Habalis circa four million years ago, moved on significantly with Homo Erectus (yeah lol!) who stood upright and had roughly the same body shape as modern humans but lacked modern cognitive capacity. Roughly a million years ago early Homo Sapiens came next which had much of the modern less robust body shape and a significantly improved brain capacity and size. However they lacked the more human manifestations of intelligence judging by the archaeological record. This species branched off into two others, first with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis and then Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern man) in Africa about a ¼ of a million years ago. The modern human brain was a relatively late development even with anatomically modern man. Evidence of modern traits only appear in the archaeological record later on!

Neanderthals get a bad press as brutal savages but in fact they were actually skilled tool makers. The quality of their workmanship exceeded anatomically modern humans at the same time. However they lacked a certain creative spark which may mean Kirate is right to cite this quality which some would call inventiveness. Modern humans had a much more varied tool kit which seemed to advance in sophistication over relatively short periods of time (thousands of years rather than tens of thousands). At the same time some tool working became quite artistic with no explicit reason roughly 100,000 years ago. When modern man expanded into Asia and then Europe perhaps the most remarkable change occurred circa 40,000 years ago. Sophisticated cave painting and primitive sculpture appeared at this time. It is speculated that these people were also highly religious due to methods of burial etc.

It seems that the inventiveness of human nature was a very slow development that speeded up dramatically 50,000 or so years ago and led to agriculture, the metal ages, literature etc. over a lengthy period but in the context of earlier development it was in the blink of an eye. Interestingly before the Neanderthal died out they also adopted many of the things that defined modern humans at the time, e.g. more varied tool working, bone working, and artistic/non utilitarian objects. That’s why I think that the Neanderthal was at an intermediate stage of development where it was capable of learning and appreciating the merit of very different skills. I would define humans as having a high level cognitive sensitivity to the external world. It isn’t as dramatic in contrast to higher intelligence animals as it might appear (it would be hard to see in a state of nature) but humans have the further advantage of advanced communication which allows the retention of knowledge making progress possible over time.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 4/22/2011 10:57:38 AM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/22/2011 12:53:12 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The test is a very simple one - for something to qualify as human nature, it has to be shared by all humans and only by humans. This standard was suggested, explained and discussed a few pages ago. No one else has expressed any reservations about it.



There are many things I don't comment on because in my view they are too absurd to deserve notice.


K.





Spoken perfectly.


There are quite a few who wanted nothing at all to do with that mess.








< Message edited by Edwynn -- 4/22/2011 12:54:48 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. - 4/22/2011 6:57:55 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline


I have thought about it. But there is no good thing that I could possibly say to such a wonder of an initial post.

Out of the many things that were nailed squarely on the head, I could find issue with or contradict only 2 or 3 items. But I'm not even going to bother with that.

Neither am I going to take the bait and venture into the ideological realm, at least not for now.

I'm afraid that the post might have been Stella's parting shot, considering how inconsiderate, uncomprehending, and obstinately defiant to what transpires before us in any capacity other than media/political theatre many people here are. The worst are the 'philisophs' who jump in eager to display their thorough obliviousness to reality that Stella so deftly and in no-nonsense fashion laid before us.

My path at present might be some different than Stella's, but it will never be that far distanced from hers in any event.


I saw this on the telly 2 years after the fact, Stella, when I was barely able to even know what was said as being so young as to have to look up at the TV,  and the particular issue addressed here is not what it's all about in the entirety of things, the underlying message reaches into all corners, over all ages, but I will say to you that this has never gone away, no matter how dark things may look at present.

To others, this came to mind because Stella just swung a whopping hammer.

(super corny here folks, sorry)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBUPr8oDRL8&feature=related





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 4/22/2011 7:10:26 PM >

(in reply to stellauk)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.098