Sure, from a philosophical perspective that wasn't terribly evidentiary or quantifiable. He had some very good ideas rooted in truth, but as far as predictive analysis goes, he wasn't even in the solar system. I'm not sure how that applies.
The big thing seems to be conflict. I did some research for a story about the anarchists of the period from about 1900-1920, and one thing they said that stuck in my mind, was that "The working man has nothing in common with the employers." I don't know if the struggle is as great anymore ... or is it?
Well, the idea of materialism fits in when we consider the consciousness limited to the brain, but the idea of dialectics requires two opposing views, which means we bring society into it.
This is interesting. Apologies, I'll bring Rand into this because your point is coming pretty close to her thoughts on moral objectivity. Ayn Rand actually used the falsifiability principle strictly in the philosophical sense. Well, she spoke of philosophical fact and indicated that philosophy is a science, but I want to avoid muddying the waters as much as possible. Hopefully this doesn't just derail into being about her in general. I think she had some really good—isolated—points about how people passively take on philosophy which leaves them open to bad philosophy. I recommend reading the whole Philosophy: Who Needs It essay because it's a wild ride listening to someone criticize contemporary philosophy while stroking West Point grads in 1974. https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Philosophy-Who-Needs-It-text.pdf
Looks interesting, and I am going to try to find some time tonight to read it. Thanks for sharing! Right now I am really into the story I am writing, and then my brother is coming over for our Scrabble game.
Got around to reading it! Rand sure gives a lot of food for thought. Definitely very pro-philosophy, but I don't agree with everything she says. Here are a few quotes from her address and some thoughts that came to me in response: The first two questions can be asked scientifically, too. But the last question – the asking of “should” – like the asking of “ought” - belongs to philosophy. But it’s important to remember that there is not only one answer to the “should” and the “ought” questions. Also - I would say that philosophy is not considered a science. Philosophy does not make use of the scientific method, but relies on logic and analyzing concepts. And their focus is different. Science focuses on the natural world and tries to explain it through empirical testing, whereas philosophy focuses on the unanswerable questions about reality, etc. And we could find a philosophy that answers each of these questions in the affirmative. The distinction between the abstract and the concrete has always been an important question in philosophy. Here, Rand is first saying that the abstract depends on the concrete, then in the next statement she is saying that the concrete depends on the abstract. That they intersect seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. So, maybe, their relationship can best be symbolized with an Ouroboro – the circle of a serpent eating its own tail. Spoiler: Ouroboros I happened to read an article from Nautilus recently that suggested just that in trying to make sense of the distinction between physical and conceptual reality. They ask: And then conclude: The question becomes: What is the starting point? What is foundational? A material scientist would say this: Concrete > Abstract > Concrete Whereas a philosopher might answer: Abstract > Concrete > Abstract If we define philosophy as “the abstract” – yes that is something we cannot avoid. Our minds are made to analyze, synthesize, make inferences, and judge. Which in turn is determined by his genetics and environment I think she is making a plea here for critical thinking. Is this why ruling by fear works? Reminds me of the post I made – Dawkins asks “How?” and Socrates asks “Why?” Socrates looked upon refutation as a compliment. Rand is a little more combative. I guess her philosophy is grounded in “winning.” And we do see that in politics today – it becomes not about the issues but “getting the other side.” She lost me with this. I was under the illusion that she was speaking of human nature in holistic terms and including all of humanity in her observations. This reduces her whole essay to ridiculousness.
Possibly. I think she saw aggression where others usually wouldn't, and in some cases she was right. If a philosopher claims he is unwilling to declare honour killings or sexual assault wrong because 'morality is relative,' that can come across as passive in the context of a mild man in a quiet study. However the content or implications of his statement are arguably quite hostile. She lost me there, too. The duality of this essay is pretty wild, which in some ways is charming.
I'm a member on The Philosophy Forum - which I recommend if you are into interesting discussions. They have a lounge, too, where you can spout off about Trump! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions Anyway, they have recently announced the "Philosophy Writing Challenge." If you think it might be something you are interested in, please check it out! From their website:
This has got me thinking about what motivates humanity. I suppose we all have different motivations? Some are motivated by truth, and some are motivated by comfort. And that of course makes me question what it is that provides comfort. My thoughts tend to the social nature of humanity. It's comforting to belong to the group, be accepted by the group. It takes a lot of courage to break free from the group and follow truth.
Is corruption winning? Are all humans corruptible? How so? Can you be moral in a corrupt world? Has there ever been a society immune from corruption? Is Plato's "philosopher king" just a strange fiction?
What a good question. And I am not going to Google it. Just gonna think about it. I think with corruption, there is always an element of falsehood and duplicity. Presenting yourself as something you are not, and always with the aim of benefitting yourself at another's cost. A politician breaking laws to enrich himself, sure, but corruption does not always have to be "official." It can be, but corruption can also be personal. Whenever one's bad impulses eat away at one's good impulses, corruption results. Now, the cause of the corruption is another story....
That's essentially the organizing principle of all human institutions since Mesopetamia. Pick any government, religion, or ruling class... all dedicated to enriching themselves to one degree or another. So, yes, corruption has been winning since Moses was in short pants. Quite literally.
I mean, we have since we've crawled out of the caves. The human condition and nature of societal order hasn't ruined a day for me yet. I ain't about to start now.
I should add that I came out of the womb endowed with chaotic cynicism. At least on the institutional level. I've never had faith in organizations of any kind. Government, religions, county fair judges... you name it. If there's influence to be had, there's gain to be gotten. Now none of that applies to individual humans. Far from it. I have endless faith in individual human intention and power for positivity. But humanity on the collective level? They can take a walk.
Rather philosophical responses. But I not sure that it is always true that the bad prevails over the good. Ah! Just when I had you pegged as a pessimist, you come out as an optimist!
But government, religion, etc. are not all created equal. Big differences exist between the most and the least corrupt countries in the world. How do you reconcile having faith in individuals but not when they come together?
Sigh. I've read far too much history; the more history you read, the more you realise that although politicians (and I'm including kings etc. in that bracket) may start out with good intentions, sooner or later, the edifice crashes down due to very human traits like rage, bloodthirstiness, and greed. So, faced with thousands upon thousands of years of stupidity, corruption, greed and brutality, I can only laugh at it. The only alternative is mourn the failings of mankind. (But hey, don't believe me; look up the Social War, during the Roman Republic. If the sheer greed, venality, and short-sighted stupidity of the Romans in those years doesn't depress you, nothing will).
I agree with Homer. In my experience and perspective, for what that's worth, most people are decent individuals, but people who take active part in organizing and running organizations, from county fairs to national governments, are rarely if ever motivated by purely philanthropic motives. And wherever there rules there are people who want to twist them, and wherever there is money to be made, there are people who will find ways to get it. There may exist some organizations with purely charitable goals and and perfect performance, but there are also many purportedly charitable or philanthropic organizations that are exposed as being corrupt. The bottom line to me, in answer to your original question, is that though most people may be honest and sincere most of the time, no one is a saint, and when you put people into organizations with power and money it will bring out the worst in many of them. I believe that most religions take the position that, one way or another, no ideal society is to be found in this world.
I don't subscribe to that binary bucket. It's very gray. If anything, I'd say that people are governed by necessity and self interest. A spectrum of behavior will result from that, usually governed by impulse control or societal constraints or whatever decision making process a particular person uses before they do something. If on this Thursday morning the internet, financial information, and power supplies go dark forever, see what good vs bad look like on Saturday. I'm optimistic AF. But I apply that judiciously and never to my expectations of human institutions. Again, how are you defining corruption and by which metric is least/most determined? I would say the size of the available pie governs the degree to which a ruling class/government is corrupt. There's a big difference between a Scandinavian welfare state and Western/Asian free market juggernauts. Or a Russian oligarch pocketing billions of petrol dollars vs some nomadic tribal chief who gets first dibs on the nubile village girls. You can only steal what's available to you. Easy. Diffusion of responsibility and how it scales with mob mentality. Most people aren't going to walk down the street smashing windows, looting stores, and burning cop cars all by their lonesome. Yet they will do it gleefully in a crowd of one hundred. You can extrapolate that all the way from a group of mischievous kids to Nazi Germany. Again, humans = good, humanity = bad.
