Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: The scourge of modernism.

  1. #1

    Default The scourge of modernism.

    The Protestant reformation was a decisive movement in the west toward abandoning its traditional cosmological beliefs. Fairies became false, Gnomes were deemed absurd and mysticism had no literal grounding in the scripture. Like the Protestants, change in Greek society began with Xenophon criticising the Homeric traditional interpretation – this lead to movement of ditached Greeks that eventually became agnostic. Though both Xenophon and Luther had very good intentions – their philosophies “demystified” the religious experience. 200 years after the reformation, Britain was the scene of massive social change, namely, the industrial revolution.

    Businessmen of the time began to suggest that designing factories where the owner could supervise his workers would result in less theft. Here in the late 18th century we see the emergence of socialism 100 years before Marx. Why was theft a problem? Many theologians suggest that: Humans across Europe were becoming a meaningless source of labour and as church attendance was diminished stealing became very prevalent. This was the same time that John Locke posited that 'humans were innately noble and had no need of Laws". Sure John.

    Indeed, Marx maintained the works of Locke and believed that the evolving human was ready to rebel against the capitalists and form a free held public state - communism. This system eliminates religion and replaces it with social naturalism, apparently, the scientific truth.

    On another front, human morality died to the progressive human ego. The works of Clergy man Thomas Malthus, inspired the young naturalist Charles Darwin. Malthus posited that the geometric growth of population would find shortcomings with the arithmetic production sectors. Malthus also wrote on the chances of survival for the rich and poor and how certain plants dominated particular ecosystems. Conversely, Darwin in the light of reading Malthus, preferred the poor over the rich (like Marx) and believed economy had little to do with survival. Try telling this to a cholera infested peon from Gin alley please, Charles. In his work "The origin of species" Darwin plagiarised Malthus, then rambled on about finch beaks and how men we are "apes risen, not angles fallen". I fail to see how this is a compliment!

    Darwin effectively told the average man, that by grace of his genes he could be superior. Since many people were illiterate this message was echoed through England... "Apes risen, not angels fallen". The problem was that science had very little to offer the common man - if anything it weakens his existence. Why? Humans are a creature of meaning - both higher and lower. When we substitute the higher spiritual 'eternal' aspect for the lower physical 'changing' aspect men go astray. A man working in a factory with little scientific knowledge can glean more from religion than from science. Sure, an academic with the privilege of money can find meaning in the diversity of biology and the complexities of the universe... but a lay man finds only confusion from this.

    Soren Kirkegaard pondered the problems with religion in “fear and trembling”. Nietzsche, a nihilist, went a step further to declare that “God is dead”. An absurd statement as God is a metaphysical entity in the first place, and hence is beyond death. These philosophers identified how God became less relevant in society. Take the examples of Denmark, Sweden and Japan. You may say that these countries have all reached the social pinnacle: no poverty, low theft, highly educated populace – But alarmingly these countries have high incidence of suicide. Neuro-chemists have demonstrated that suicide is a combination of genetics and severe depression. Many people now dismiss that the individuals tragedy and struggle to find meaning as a simple genetic inferiority. However, a less known fact plays a more important role in the determinant of serotonin levels, specifically finding contentment and meaning; unfortunately religion is dead in these countries and has been replaced by modernism. Although, both Denmark and Sweden are predominantly Lutherans, in the census some >80% of Swedes did not believe in God. Similarly, in Japan Shintoism has been reduced to ridiculous stories about how grandpa once saw a dragon by the water-fall. As for Buddhism, very few Japanese even practice, little loan hold true to vegetarianism. Additionally, abortion rates are very high, so one can perceive that the sacredness of human life has diminished value in these countries listed.

    It is evident that the world as a whole is slowly abandoning its traditions. The reformation facilitated the trend in Europe, and still provides a measure of this trend. England was certainly on the pulse when it came to modernist philosophy – which has become the staple diet of the modern socialist state. The mercantilists played a role in this as they wanted to take the power from the kings, just as an eager communist may desire to take the power from the mercantilist (bourgeoisie). Each time Humans break from tradition and favour modernism, the leaders become more laconic as do the ages. The works of Locke, Darwin and Nietzsche are instrumental in understanding modernism and naturalism. This is not the first age to favour natural explanations in history; ancient Greece had its period of agnostics shortly before “the fall”.

    Modernism fails to answer the meaning of existence, its purpose and consequences. Its main purpose is to serve a state that is quite content to have its people ignore morality and feel rewarded for ignorance. To the businessman biotechnology means profit, and modernism is a great way to sedate people. This is the wrong doing of the passionate archaeologist modifying chimp skulls to find the “missing-link” to the indoctrinated lay man who votes on the chance for a cure to disease even if it comes at the meagre cost of a few embryos!
    Which Final Fantasy 8 Character Are You? You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
    but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
    world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
    shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.


    Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!

  2. #2
    ...you hot, salty nut! Recognized Member fire_of_avalon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    17,442
    Blog Entries
    34
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    You sure talk alot.

    No type of "-ism" can ever fully answer the questions concerning "The meaning/purpose of life" because everyone's life has a different purpose. All of the -ism's that exist are merely social groupings utilized so that we as human beings don't feel so alone all the time. That's how I see it anyways.

    Signature by rubah. I think.

  3. #3
    Doc Skogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    A Land Down Under
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    I'd rather humanity try (and most likely fail) to achieve 'enlightenment' through its own devices rather than have our meaning for existence spoon-fed to us.

  4. #4
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    OK, interesting points brought up there, but then again, I do not agree with many things, yet I find your opinion very refreshing.

    Anyway, first of all, I must say we are not in modernism, but post-modernism, the time the writer and critic García Posada called "deep idiocy" (And thats an example of quoting without a need to do so, yay for pedantism).

    However, I think you fail in many aspects of your analysis. Let me point out some things:

    how men we are "apes risen, not angles fallen". I fail to see how this is a compliment!
    First, I believe that the believe in God, when not taken to the extreme of self-destrcution, is something good for life, makes it easier, but I do not believe such belief or the dismiss of such belief can be rationally explained (And thats why agnosticism is for me the only trully rational aproximation, and even christians such as Kant said that).

    However, apes risen, not angels fallen is a theory defending we evolve from apes, nothing more. You may not like the idea of evolving from a beast, but it is there, and as I said in the other post, I believe in it until I a better alternative is given.

    Nietzsche, a nihilist, went a step further to declare that “God is dead”. An absurd statement as God is a metaphysical entity in the first place, and hence is beyond death.
    1) Nietzsche is not a nihilist, he is a vitalist. Nietzsche fought against nihilism, becaue he said that- after the death of God- it was either that or the Superhuman (I won't say Superman). Nihilist is your average attention whore pasty-white angsty goth that writes awful poetry about crimson clouds and blood tears.

    2) Such absurd statement is meant to be read as a metaphor. If you read Nietzsche and take what he says literally you will think he was high on crack or something like that.

    However, a less known fact plays a more important role in the determinant of serotonin levels, specifically finding contentment and meaning; unfortunately religion is dead in these countries and has been replaced by modernism.
    Yes, I know that. Religious people tend to fall less into suicide because they have the hope of a God looking after them and the fear of hell after suicide. Lack of religion sometimes gives the feeling life is meaningless, and it may be. I have nothing to say against that.

    However, I do not believe abandoning some aspects of tradition is that bad. It is useful to believe in God, but it is not a rational anwser to what we are doing here, just a hypothesis.

    Modernism fails to answer the meaning of existence, its purpose and consequences. Its main purpose is to serve a state that is quite content to have its people ignore morality and feel rewarded for ignorance. To the businessman biotechnology means profit, and modernism is a great way to sedate people.
    And yet, die religion ist das opium des volkes, religion is the opium of the masses. Like it or not, such alienation occurs under religious thinking too. It may give a meaning to life, but it is still purely hypothetical. And having a book telling you not following the ten comandments drags you into hell is not what I believe to be oposed to "sedate people". I used to be a catholic, used to try to follow the ten comandments, and yet of course it was impossible, because there are "sins of thought", and not having "impure" thoughts is against nature. In other words, following a book someone wrote, God or human, is not freedom.

    Yet, after the death of God, there has been no superhuman, but alienation to the capital, where pragmatism rules as the only morality, do what is useful, don't think, be an idiot so we can control you, be our grey mechanism in the system of production, our tool, and we will sustain your life, your security. That is what Nietzsche called the sheep, and that is why I defend wolves above any sheep, because wolves are the fighters, the rebels, the ones refusing to submit. Nietzsche defended wolves too.

    So my point is that going back to tradition will not free anyone. Not tradition nor the capital, I believe, will help us. To me, the way to actually liberate from the chains of everything, religion, capitalism or whatever, is through the principles exposed in the introduction of a certain document written in Koninsberg, in 1784:

    An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"


    Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

    Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts.

    Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating the;r own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.


    -Immanuel Kant

  5. #5
    Doc Sark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    I find myself agreeing more with Shadow Nexus, particularly on Nietzsche, though he did go quite mad. His statement; "God is Dead" came into existence after Darwin had made his discoveries and Nietzsche was making an observation on the repercussions that would have in modern (late 1800) soceity. As for being in a post-modernist era now I am not so sure, I sit on the fence as far as this is concerned as many historians believe modernism is still in effectl, particularly in literature.

  6. #6
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Modernism started with enlightment as a way to overcome the religious and political alienation, and the coming of post-modernism occured in the crisis of ideologies that found it's culmination in the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

    I prefer modernism. Seriously.

  7. #7

    Default Brief

    Actually, I spoke of modernity and its prior existentialist philosophers, who shaped the era. However, there are many theories on the modern era: Traditionalism equates the "modern era" about the time of the renaissance after Christ was given a human face and form. A rapid break down in traditional values occurred in this time and the school that grew up in the monasteries, namely, science (see the number of priest who had an interest in science) gained momentum in the public eye. Galileo intentionally wrote in Italian to gain the interest of the public man. Philosophy is more pedantic about the specific periods, however, all things being equal there is much argument even within the fraternity. Essentially, the modernism experienced in society in the 1800's to 1940's was the child of a breakdown in - tradition, then in art, then social policy. The communist state and Nazi Germany are considered to be the 'highest' expression of this breakdown. In the same way that Napoleon restored traditional systems to France, one could argue that America restored (enforced) tradition through various mechanisms in post war Germany and Russia. Look at all the people who returned to the churches after reform in Russia.

    "As for being in a post-modernist era now I am not so sure, I sit on the fence as far as this is concerned as many historians believe modernism is still in effectl, particularly in literature."
    I agree, many apparatus are still at play in politics and culture.

    Sure Locke was prior to Kirkegaard, but he was instrumental in the assertion that man was inherently good natured... i.e. he was lawful and abiding with ethics.

    "However, apes risen, not angels fallen is a theory defending we evolve from apes, nothing more. You may not like the idea of evolving from a beast, but it is there, and as I said in the other post, I believe in it until I a better alternative is given. "

    Yeah, the Catholics accept that evolution is the most likely natural explanation for man... fine. The problem is when men favour naturalism over spiritual 'progress'. Men need to find the eternal truth as opposed to changing theories.

    The world book encyclopaedia described: [That] Nietzsche had difficulty remaining true to Nihilism, as Nihilism dictates that even a belief in Nihilism is contrary to the philosophy. This may have driven him to insanity. Nietzsche did not really know what to believe in the end - he just became a fragmented mad-man.

    Marx, an alcoholic, had a bone to pick with the establishment. The opium for the masses asserts that religion offers some form of euphoric reward, when in reality, religion seeks to eliminate the ego.


    Immanuel Kant fell victim to the device of demystification. In this he stripped the main elements of the human ascension to the truth, but lost the supernatural element of the universe. This is the same degradation witnessed in "Buddhist monthly" or $2 astrology readings -
    Are you familiar with the term "egg blowing" ? This is why philosophy takes the mystical experience away from religion, leaving a husk of altruism, which appears absolutely true and practical, but leaves the 'inspired' no path to connect to his tradition. I will concede that Kant was admirable in his appeal to preconceived forms and shapes (reminiscent of Plato).
    Last edited by Besimudo; 05-04-2004 at 04:17 AM.
    Which Final Fantasy 8 Character Are You? You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
    but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
    world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
    shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.


    Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!

  8. #8
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Essentially, the modernism experienced in society in the 1800's to 1940's was the child of a breakdown in - tradition, then in art, then social policy. The communist state and Nazi Germany are considered to be the 'highest' expression of this breakdown
    Communism is, in fact, the highest expression of the triumph of modern values through enlightened reformism. Well, that would be the day it worked, not Stalinism.

    Yeah, the Catholics accept that evolution is the most likely natural explanation for man... fine. The problem is when men favour naturalism over spiritual 'progress'. Men need to find the eternal truth as opposed to changing theories.
    You mean the theory of evolution is not a stable truth? It is a theory, and the theory does not change, the species the theory refers to do. And the world is in movement, even if behind matter there is truth. I think Aristotle already treated that enough in his "Metaphisics".

    The world book encyclopaedia described: [That] Nietzsche had difficulty remaining true to Nihilism, as Nihilism dictates that even a belief in Nihilism is contrary to the philosophy. This may have driven him to insanity. Nietzsche did not really know what to believe in the end - he just became a fragmented mad-man.
    ...

    Buy a new encyclopedia. Nietzsche had a degenerative illness that turned him mad (Siphilis, I believe). I insist, Nietzshce was not a nihilist. I have read Nietzsche, and I even know the Spanish translator of his books, he works in my university...and no, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. Nihilist comes from "nihil", meaning "nothing", believing in nothing.

    Marx, an alcoholic, had a bone to pick with the establishment. The opium for the masses asserts that religion offers some form of euphoric reward, when in reality, religion seeks to eliminate the ego.
    First, Marx alcoholism has nothing to do with his theories, you are falling in the ad hominem fallacy. Next, religion gives a reward: Heaven. That if you behave. So Marx believed that religion tamed the people and convinced them this life was unimportant and that eternal life was what really was important, thus making them nice sheep that would never rise in rebellion against the capitalist state.

    Immanuel Kant fell victim to the device of demystification. In this he stripped the main elements of the human ascension to the truth, but lost the supernatural element of the universe. This is the same degradation witnessed in "Buddhist monthly" or $2 astrology readings -
    Are you familiar with the term "egg blowing" ? This is why philosophy takes the mystical experience away from religion, leaving a husk of altruism, which appears absolutely true and practical, but leaves the 'inspired' no path to connect to his tradition. I will concede that Kant was admirable in his appeal to preconceived forms and shapes (reminiscent of Plato).
    Uh? Victim of demystification? Supernatural element of the universe? Kant was a philosopher, he developed his theory through logic, he attempted to define the subject, the individual and it's capability of comprehension and knowledge. He did not need "mysticism".

  9. #9

    Default

    "Communism is, in fact, the highest expression of the triumph of modern values through enlightened reformism. Well, that would be the day it worked, not Stalinism."

    When the masses rebel a tyrannical ruler always emerges as the victor. Communism is a movement of disorder as it relies on a break down in tradition, inviting a diminished rule to proceed. Hierarchy is a requirement of any system, even communism, which as history demonstrates tends to produce the very worst rulers. The argument that we have not witnessed a 'true' demonstration of communism is common amoung the Marxist faithfuls.

    You presented some interesting points on Nietzsche!

    However, Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" -(Will to Power). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" -(Will to Power).


    "First, Marx alcoholism has nothing to do with his theories, you are falling in the ad hominem fallacy. Next, religion gives a reward: Heaven. That if you behave. So Marx believed that religion tamed the people and convinced them this life was unimportant and that eternal life was what really was important, thus making them nice sheep that would never rise in rebellion against the capitalist state. "

    Most alcoholic hobos ramble on about the vicious state and its wicked social externalities. The difference is that we usually ignore their rubbish; however, Marx was the exception to the rule.

    "Uh? Victim of demystification? Supernatural element of the universe? Kant was a philosopher, he developed his theory through logic, he attempted to define the subject, the individual and it's capability of comprehension and knowledge. He did not need "mysticism"."

    You seem to underestimate the role metaphysics plays in the origins of philosophy. Epistemology for its own sake is quite worthless, and results in the academic banter witnessed in the last days of Rome. Thankfully for Rome a new tradition (Christianity) established itself, rejuvenating intellectual thought such as St. Augustine - (De Civitate Dei), and St. Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologica).
    Without mysticism, the human kind would still be the animal untamed in the cave.

    Additionally, the reward of religion is one of separation from the ego, not the creation of a material paradise (as in communism). I would go one step further to say that any ideology, communism included, that proposes a material paradise is flawed. Clearly, this existence is one of suffering and despair, so one must devote his full efforts to work away from physical appetites as opposed to feeding them. Communism provides a simple way to break down our traditions, to create a short lived party on May day, only to result in oblivion of the human spirit.





    Just as an aside - Which institution are you taking philosophy at? Spain has an outstanding heritage in the disciplines of Literature and humanities. I am envious of the architecture in Salamanca, domain of Spain's oldest university.
    Which Final Fantasy 8 Character Are You? You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
    but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
    world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
    shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.


    Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!

  10. #10
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    Bah, trout, I posted a long reply to this and damn Explorer crashed. So now you get a very brief version.

    When the masses rebel a tyrannical ruler always emerges as the victor.
    Constructivism. There, this was a long paragraph. But I'll leave it there: Constrctivism, ergo fallacy.

    The argument that we have not witnessed a 'true' demonstration of communism is common amoung the Marxist faithfuls.
    Because we have not witnessed it. Trust me, if there was a real communist state, I'd be living there.

    However, Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism.
    In fact, it's vitalism he is associated with, he inherited a lot from Arthur Schopenhauer. Then again, tyes, I do admit there are a lot of nihilistic values in his philosophy, that I can't deny, specially in terms of morals, he is a moral nihilist. Also, his thinking changes through time, you can see a lot of differences between his books, and in some periods he was more nihilist, yet never a nihilist.

    Most alcoholic hobos ramble on about the vicious state and its wicked social externalities. The difference is that we usually ignore their rubbish; however, Marx was the exception to the rule.


    ...

    You seem to underestimate the role metaphysics plays in the origins of philosophy. Epistemology for its own sake is quite worthless, and results in the academic banter witnessed in the last days of Rome. Thankfully for Rome a new tradition (Christianity) established itself, rejuvenating intellectual thought such as St. Augustine - (De Civitate Dei), and St. Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologica).
    Without mysticism, the human kind would still be the animal untamed in the cave.
    Um...how are you using mysticism here? For me mnetaphysics is beyond physical phenomenons, and such ideas are reached through suposition following some logical aspects, like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant did. I relate mysticism to something much more spiritual but far less logical, even if...shall I say...more poetic? Y can talk about mystical poets, like San Juan de la Cruz or Santa Teresa de Jesús.

    Clearly, this existence is one of suffering and despair, so one must devote his full efforts to work away from physical appetites as opposed to feeding them. Communism provides a simple way to break down our traditions, to create a short lived party on May day, only to result in oblivion of the human spirit.
    1. The idea of existance of suffering and despair is very medieval, precisely the attitude Marx critizized, because people with such attitude were easily dominated as they did not believe their lifes could get better and longed for paradise. As for me, I do not share your opinion either, simply for the reason I am agnostic, thus I don't know if God exists, and if he exists, I doubt he has humanly comprehensible moral values like those stated in the Bible. In fact, if God is perfect, he should not be worried about if we decide to go to bed with people we are not married with. He is the creator of the cosmos.

    2. Communism is not "physical appetites", that is for capitalism, that proposes an unsustainable system of opulency. In fact, communism requires some lack of economical (Not intellectual) ambition from people. If you want a large mansion, four whores with silicon boobs, lots of pizza and a luxurious car, just trust capitalism can provide it if you work hard enough to step on the heads of your rivals and sink them. Or if you get the inhertiance from Daddy.

    Just as an aside - Which institution are you taking philosophy at? Spain has an outstanding heritage in the disciplines of Literature and humanities. I am envious of the architecture in Salamanca, domain of Spain's oldest university.
    Salamanca is amazing, yes, but sadly that building is no longer used for classes, if it was, I'd probably go there just cause I love it. Now they work in new buildings an the old university is open for visits. This does not happen in the university of Barcelona where I work, where the old building is still in use. However, it's not half as good as Salamanca's, and philosophy is teached in a not so beautiful building that looks like some weird alien base from the outside.

    There, thats a short version of my last post. I hate Explorer.

  11. #11

    Default

    "Bah, trout, I posted a long reply to this and damn Explorer crashed. So now you get a very brief version."

    I can relate to this pain!

    "Constructivism. There, this was a long paragraph. But I'll leave it there: Constrctivism, ergo fallacy."

    To the historian a break away from traditionalism has always produced a new regime with more holes than the previous. Some examples include, France, Russia, China...

    France was a nightmare after Louis Lost his head - Robespierre was a mongrel to the people, and the people were confused to see that the rebellion produced a loss in business activity and living standards. That was until le petit corporal restored the tradition.

    Russians are happier today, without Gosplan or the anti-religious doctrine of communism.

    Chinese had a long history of herbal Taoism and mystic practice past on through the family... THIS WAS OUTLAWED UNDER COMMUNISM! Millions went into poverty until economic reform in 1979!!

    Communism is just a concise plan to deceive the people into believing that they can have all the privileges without working for them. In the end the system collapsed and the people were rescued from a schlock red banner - and returned to their identity that their forefathers worked for. People need good leaders, not bad ones as we have seen under communist regime. I am also dubious about such organizations as the UN and European Union, as these systems provide the economic climate for political globalisation. These systems are more market savvy Neo-commie regimes.


    "Because we have not witnessed it. Trust me, if there was a real communist state, I'd be living there."

    Could I recommend George Orwell's Animal Farm?


    "1. The idea of existence of suffering and despair is very medieval, precisely the attitude Marx critizized, because people with such attitude were easily dominated as they did not believe their lifes could get better and longed for paradise. As for me, I do not share your opinion either, simply for the reason I am agnostic, thus I don't know if God exists, and if he exists, I doubt he has humanly comprehensible moral values like those stated in the Bible. In fact, if God is perfect, he should not be worried about if we decide to go to bed with people we are not married with. He is the creator of the cosmos."

    A physical paradise is impossible...Our physical existence is subject to change, so we must seek to attain the infinite.
    As for the bible... This is but one mode of delivery, and within this mode the truth of Love is quintessential to finding virtue, hence the love of Jesus. The idea of oneness is crucial in understanding the monotheistic truth... One universe, One God and One Love... When you sleep with someone outside marriage you are simply going outside the system of oneness!... This would be comparable to a buddhist eating meat! (as this prevents others on the path).


    "2. Communism is not "physical appetites", that is for capitalism, that proposes an unsustainable system of opulency. In fact, communism requires some lack of economical (Not intellectual) ambition from people. If you want a large mansion, four whores with silicon boobs, lots of pizza and a luxurious car, just trust capitalism can provide it if you work hard enough to step on the heads of your rivals and sink them. Or if you get the inhertiance from Daddy."

    I do not trust the Mercantilists either!! Indeed. If you are obsessed with a world of equality, where the uninspired proletariat lives in a simple, unproductive world of work: then this is what you will have. The problem under communism is that the economic rewards are less that the marginal utility of leisure... This equates to political reform which FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work! The appetite is leisure of course! and in communism there is theoretically more leisure time (Das Kapital) the worker chooses his activities.
    What was more alarming was the Marxist production function... Where a chief is the producer while the waiter is an inefficiency! Not only the insulting words of a delerious alcoholic but economically unsound... Clearly, any 'value-added' to a product even if it is simple logistics or service, is economically sound (see Adam Smith on production - who actually wrote many years before Marx)... So Marx was not only a flawed social commentator but a weak student of economy!

    Also, considering your comment: qoute - "..." Or neglegence of a comment! In silence, I can only accept that you agree with me; that Marx was not exactly a role-modle of a man.

    Anyhow! Denmark and Sweden have achieved social “egality”, largely due to economist Knut Wicksell (proto Keynesian) reforms… Not through radical means such as hanging the Regent!

    "philosophy is teached in a not so beautiful building that looks like some weird alien base from the outside."

    What a shame! In Australia, Melbourne’s federation square is somewhat questionable.
    Last edited by Besimudo; 05-06-2004 at 05:23 AM.
    Which Final Fantasy 8 Character Are You? You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
    but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
    world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
    shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.


    Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!

  12. #12
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    To the historian a break away from traditionalism has always produced a new regime with more holes than the previous. Some examples include, France, Russia, China...
    As I said, that is constructivism, you attempt to use empirical experience as a reasoning to proove your point. This is deduction, it is also used scientifically, and it is also bound to be flased (Ever read Popper?). Marx did the same error, but he was more cautelous when expressing himself, chapter one of the Communist Manifesto (Chapter one, not the introduction of "a ghost walks in Europe...") he says "History up to today has been the fight of classes". Up to today, that is. And he was right, although I know it's not as simple as black and white, since most revolutionary ideas are developed by the dominating class (Enlightment, Communism...). Then again, today the low classes have becomed idiotized and alienated, meaning no proletariat conscience, meaning no fight class, meaning that idiot- Fukuyama- thinking this was the end of history (No, it's just the second volume). So basically, you can't make a general rule out of cases. However, you can say "revolution TENDS TO end with tyranical leaders". Yes, it does, and that is mainly because revolutions are awfully carried out. I believe it was Pablo Neruda the one who said that before changing the top, we must change the low first.

    Bah, should have left the long paragraph in the other post.

    Russians are happier today, without Gosplan or the anti-religious doctrine of communism.
    Uh, OK, communist Russia is far from any utopia, specially during Stalin's rule, probably the most horrible man who ever existed...well, one of them. Yet in the last period of the regime, the last years of the 80s, where censhorip ended (Glasnost)...well, I believe it was better than now, or at least so says my father, who has travelled to Russia many times, both in the 80s and in the last years. His words more or less were: "Socialist Russia was certainly not a paradise, but at least you don't have beggars in the street like you do now".

    Oh, and a little point...Russia was never communist. Nor was Korea, China, Cuba...none is called officially communist, but socialist. Communis is where there is no state, socialism is the period between capitralism and communism.

    Communism is just a concise plan to deceive the people into believing that they can have all the privileges without working for them.
    No, it is about covering the basic necessities of people. And stoping alienated work.

    Could I recommend George Orwell's Animal Farm?
    I read it. Thats was a critique to Stalinism, I believe Orwell was torvskyst (I spelled that wrong, didn't I?). Well, he was certainly to the far left, or at least that is what he seemed like in "Homenage to Catalonia".

    Could I recommend Willam Goldwin's (And spelled that wrong) Lord of the Flies? That book has two readings, one talks about man being intrinsecally evil and the other seems like an apology to Rousseau's Social Contract and "Speech about the origin of unequality between men". I recommend those too, Rousseau is wonderful.

    A physical paradise is impossible...Our physical existence is subject to change, so we must seek to attain the infinite.
    Ah, certainly it is impossible. But we can get better than this, certainly better than this.

    And as for attaining the infinite...infinite is a complex term, you don't even know of the existance of an infinite being. You can believe that God exists, but you can't know it. Unless you're Jack Chick or something.

    When you sleep with someone outside marriage you are simply going outside the system of oneness!... This would be comparable to a buddhist eating meat! (as this prevents others on the path).
    Um...I would, then again I do not believe in the bible, nor do I believe in marriage, nor in Quevedo's "ash they will be, yet ash in love" (Ash or dust, I know the poem and the Bible in Spanish). My point is that since I do not know if God exists, I find no reason to follow the path a book tells me to follow, since that would mean lack of freedom. If people want to follow it, then fine, but thats not my case. I'm agnostic after all.

    If you are obsessed with a world of equality, where the uninspired proletariat lives in a simple, unproductive world of work: then this is what you will have.
    Eh, no, it is neither what I am obsessed with or what I will have. Equality is not what I believe in, at least not total equality. I believe, though, every person should have their basic necessities covered, and that wealth should be distributed based in the necessities, not the social position. A pianist needs a piano and a philosopher, writer or poet needs books. A piano is more expensive than books, or a whole collection of Plato and Aritotle books translated by Gredos plus a good edition of Marx Capital, Nietzsche's bibliography and a full collection on medieval, renaissance and modern philosophy, along with the Koran, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching and a whole collection of essays on theology...that is probably more expensive than a piano. So..you get my point, it's not exact equiality, it's just satisfying the needs.

    Oh and please, don't tell me the philosopher of a communist state would have to go to a bibliotheque (Library, whatever it's called in English) to get his books. OK; maybe he would, I was just using the book thing as an example.

    Second, what do you mean with uninspired abnd unproductive? Communism is meant to stop alienation in work, not foment it. And that takes me to...

    The problem under communism is that the economic rewards are less that the marginal utility of leisure... This equates to political reform which FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work! The appetite is leisure of course! and in communism there is theoretically more leisure time (Das Kapital) the worker chooses his activities.
    Yes, it FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work. What do you expect, for products to fall from the sky? Marx critique faced on alienated work that did not mean the realization of the individual in work. Can I recommend Charle's Chaplin "Modern times"?

    What was more alarming was the Marxist production function... Where a chief is the producer while the waiter is an inefficiency! Not only the insulting words of a delerious alcoholic but economically unsound... Clearly, any 'value-added' to a product even if it is simple logistics or service, is economically sound (see Adam Smith on production - who actually wrote many years before Marx)... So Marx was not only a flawed social commentator but a weak student of economy!
    Well, all I know is that The Capital is regarded as one of the most important economy books, so I doubt Marx was a bad student. And about what you said....well, I study philosophy, not economy, and of course, Marx's economical theory is more on the background than the philosophical one. In other words, I can't reply to that because I admit my ignorance would lead me to fabricate a weak argument. However, if there is an error in Marx's economical theory, then it can be changed. It's not like I consider Marx the alpha and omega of philosophy. In fact, I have many other philosophers I like, not like those damn Marxist dogmatic assholes who call me "idealist spiritualistic burgeoise intellectual" just because I happen to like Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Lao Tse or Plato. You know, one of them even said "I do not read anything that may be found in a Church's library". Thats wonderful, because then it means he probably...dosen't read anything asides from crappy Stephen King bestseller novels. Or Danielle Steel. Well, those a very simple minded people, I believe (Dogmatic marxists, I mean).

    Also, considering your comment: qoute - "..." Or neglegence of a comment! In silence, I can only accept that you agree with me; that Marx was not exactly a role-modle of a man.
    Marx wasn't any role-model, but comparing him to a drunken hobo rambling is just...well, no commets. It's like comparing Saint Thomas to Jack Chick or Phelps. Or St Agustine to your regular TV preacher that makes "miracles" in TV by praying God to cure people's cancers. In fact, I accidentally sintonized a pirate emission of an Evangelist channel that has fanatics preaching 24/7. Since I am agnostic I can just laugh at them, but my mother is a Christian and feels deeply ashamed by such an exposure of sectarian idiocy.

    What a shame! In Australia, Melbourne’s federation square is somewhat questionable.
    But hey, our university has an alien shaped library! I would post the picture, but I fear explorer to crash and send this post into oblivion.

    Edit: http://www.esponjiforme.com/images/ovni.jpg

    Last edited by Shadow Nexus; 05-06-2004 at 11:10 AM.

  13. #13

    Default

    "As I said, that is constructivism, you attempt to use empirical experience as a reasoning to proove your point."

    I never denied this, as it was crucial in avoiding pure decentralisation. In short - without government or a state to plan public goods e.g. libraries (biblotech is French) or railways or roads, then nothing happens. I would never personally fund a road or library, even if it increased total social utility, as my benefit is reduced in relative terms.

    If there was no state (communism), black markets would emerge to provide goods that are cheaper to manufacture in collusion (firms etc...) as individuals cannot produce everything. In fact if the latter is the case i.e. individuals are expected to produce everything as is the case for the peasant - production will slow or even cease! As the pay- offs for the peasant are less than the pianist.

    "Oh, and a little point...Russia was never communist. Nor was Korea, China, Cuba...none is called officially communist, but socialist. Communis is where there is no state, socialism is the period between capitalism and communism."

    This is like saying that America is not pure capitalist... As Americas government creates subsidies and regulates certain market forces. If we took these away then each person could work, produce and gain a profit respective of his or her productivity. Government forces such as Taxes and inflation hurt the pure capitalistic market.

    Besides this Communism goes against the grain of nature as it removes the hierarchy... Even insects have a hierarchy, as there is efficiency in order. Disorder may be more efficient on the microscale, as Fourier suggested prior to Marx (on returning to small communes) ... However, try to co-ordinate a massive hive (society) and you will see that hierarchy is mandatory. - Even heaven has a hierarchy of angels!

    "In fact, I accidentally sintonized a pirate emission of an Evangelist channel that has fanatics preaching 24/7. Since I am agnostic I can just laugh at them,"

    Well your not Robinson Crusoe here!

    I must say I love that building!!
    It looks like there was a guy hanging from the left hand side ... do you have an explanation for this?
    Which Final Fantasy 8 Character Are You? You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
    but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
    world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
    shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.


    Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!

  14. #14
    Clyde Arronway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In your computer, duh!
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
    Uh, OK, communist Russia is far from any utopia, specially during Stalin's rule, probably the most horrible man who ever existed...well, one of them. Yet in the last period of the regime, the last years of the 80s, where censhorip ended (Glasnost)...well, I believe it was better than now, or at least so says my father, who has travelled to Russia many times, both in the 80s and in the last years. His words more or less were: "Socialist Russia was certainly not a paradise, but at least you don't have beggars in the street like you do now".
    Russia is not capitolist, no matter what economists may say. The most most most important thing in captiolism is ownership of private proproty. without that no one has colatteral on loans and there's economic stagnation. You may think a bunch of ex-commies on the street might not do well with that much money, and it may be very risky, but it works. Look at the Czek republic and south africa. These are both countries that gave their people their land and they've comparitivly taken off!
    Clyde Arronwy, The Great and Magnificent Gumby, Lord Thanatosimii, Having Been Bequiethed of the Poke-dom, Ruler of Gumbolivia, Third member of "The Mind Whose Name Dare Not Be Spoken Aloud"

  15. #15
    Unpostmodernizeable Shadow Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Barcino, Hispania
    Posts
    987

    Default

    I would never personally fund a road or library, even if it increased total social utility, as my benefit is reduced in relative terms
    I don't understand this. Care to explain?

    If there was no state (communism), black markets would emerge to provide goods that are cheaper to manufacture in collusion (firms etc...) as individuals cannot produce everything. In fact if the latter is the case i.e. individuals are expected to produce everything as is the case for the peasant - production will slow or even cease! As the pay- offs for the peasant are less than the pianist.
    Black market why? The lack of state in communism is supposed to come after years of socialism, a lot of years. The idea of the socialist period is to prepare the new generations to a world with no state, thus avoiding such things.

    Then again, such idea can be flawed by the concept of the evil human nature, defended by many people. I do not believie, however, man is intrinsecally evil, because in that case, I would admit absolutistism to be the best system available. Why? It's just a logic relation of ideas, and I do not need to explain them, my dear little Thomas Hobbes did it in his not so dear little book, "The Leviathan". I'm sure you are familiar to it.

    And as for the cease of production, I don't understand your point.

    This is like saying that America is not pure capitalist...
    No, it is not, no place is pure capitalist, because such idea means the installing of total anarchy in the market...but well, we're not far away from that, I believe.

    Yet, the main essence of communism is the lack of state. I seriously find no relationship between that and Stalin.

    Besides this Communism goes against the grain of nature as it removes the hierarchy...
    It removes classes, not the total organization of everything. In terms of production, there has to be an organization. Hierarchical, probably yes, someone has to direct. Unless of course, there is an alternative way of organization, and yet I do not know of any, nor do I know if Marx proposed it in "The Capital" (Haven't read all the book).

    I must say I love that building!!
    It looks like there was a guy hanging from the left hand side ... do you have an explanation for this?
    Oh, it's what we call The Ovni. And that guy hanging, according to the source page, is an English student who commited suicide because the ancient philosophy classes had so many readings on really smart philosophers he felt like crap. According to the site, his suicide note was: "I just wanted to go to the cafe, but I was attacked by ancient philosophy readings and I felt like a zero, so I killed myself". Then his body was hanged there to give example to the other lazy students.


    ...

    Yet in reality it is a doll put as a reivindication against some reforms the goverment wished to apply into universitary educations. I like the other story better, though, it's more interesting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •