• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Classical Celt

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Mad:Classical Celt: How can my statement be a contradiction if your statement is true?Your response:Quote:I suppose it all depends on how a person interprets your original statement. To my mind, the self-corrective faculty in our society -- inasmuch as you take society to means simply the conglomerate of all the people within a culture -- doesn't distinguish it from any other society. I don't know of any societies that haven't made internal changes over time, and those changes may be regarded as correctives depending on the point of view from which they're regardedIf you wish to compare the society you live in to the societies of communism/fascism/socialism have at it. They may make minor changes over time as you stated but you could never say they have the same self-correcting abilities of open and free society such as that here in the United States. There is always room for corrections but you are currently living in the greatest society. You can idealise better but can you show me a better society?Quote:That isn't, however, how I initially interpreted "society" in your statement. I read it as the institutional structure of society as embodied in the nation -- the system of checks and balances, multi-party system, etc. These are not, as I see them, "self-corrective" measures. They aren't automatic; the social system is in no way correcting itself.You interpreted me correctly I do believe we live in a self correcting society, even if you think it's not happening fast enough or not. When a society can hold open and free elections schedule every few years and change their representatives I believe this is a self correcting societyQuote:What this system does allow is the peaceably division of society into status quo and opposition, and it is invariably the protest of the opposition that instigates correction. We make changes all the time, but we are not always assimilable to societyI would partially agree with this statement. A peaceful division of society into pro and con, not quo and opposition. (Your choice of words seem harsh) If I learn that this is your way of speaking I'll stop makeing a point of your word choices.Quote:With all due respect, that seems like a rather backhanded compliment. "You're not as obnoxious as most theists, but what are you doing around here in the first place?" And what does my theism have to do with the subject of the American system of governance? I certainly didn't bring it up.I shouldn't have said that......forgive me! Edited by: Classical Celt at: 4/24/06 11:15 am
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Riverc0ilYou mention all these Utopian combinations of political and economic systems as being possible, but where are they today? Quote:Also, I would add that in a socialist society (depending on how a society is made up), you would still have the right to do what ever the heck you wanted to.Would you have the right to sell your intellectual property for the price that consumers are ready, willing and able to pay? Would you have the right to pursue your economic dream of becoming wealthy? Ok, so you can't do "whatever the heck you want," can you? What you really meant is that you could take a walk down to the park and feed the ducks anytime you desire. Some of us want more out of life than this little freedom.Quote:You want to buy a different brand of car? Go for it.How about if I just love cars and I want to own a few classic cars along with a Ferrari? Is this possible or would a socialist society forbid and prohibit this inequity somehow? If I cannot work towards the ability to drive a luxury car, then your statement is not entirely true. I can buy a different brand or color of car, but the value of the car is wedged nicely between some set parameters.Quote:But back to the issue of self correctin, MA is completely right on this issue.No, he most certainly is not. What we have here is an issue of semantics. What we're disagreeing on is the definition of "self-correcting." Quote:The system is not "Self" Correcting. But our political system was built with correcting methods available. But they only work when people use them, therefore, they are not self correcting.This is where we run into the semantics. Of course the actual system doesn't correct itself magically all on its own. Of course it is dependent on people actively using the available correcting methods. Don't we say that our government is designed with all sorts of checks and balances in place? Naturally this doesn't operate magically without a helping hand from interested parties. Quote:Look at how long it took for so many things to change from women's rights, discrimination, etc. These things did not self correct, but required massive movements, one that split the country in half.In other words our system allowed for these things to be corrected. The point is that the system actually allows for problems to be corrected, whether they are political or economic problems. Just because some problems take a long time to resolve doesn't mean that the system doesn't provide avenues of resolution.Quote:To argue a system is self correcting that resulted in a civil war does not speak well for how the system corrects itself, but rather speaks towards human falibility.So this is your argument for how our system sucks? Aren't there wars happening all over this world, both in communist and democratic nations alike? The fact is only one system has led to prosperity and massive advances, and that is a democratic free market.Quote:Several times we have double reversed ourselves such as prohibition.So you're calling it double-reversing, and we're calling it "correcting" or adjusting.Quote:The mechanism is in place, but it requires active use to bring about change.Of course. Quote:It generally requires a major push or movement to make a major alteration to the constitution.And this is a good thing. Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 4/26/06 10:23 am
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

I'll concede that using the label "self-correcting" is not appropriate. There are systems in place to allow for change and growth. This is all that Classical Celt meant by the label "self-correcting."
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Chris: Some of us want more out of life than this little freedom.No doubt. I think all of us want freedom, but because we are so full of pain and rage, we take it from others and destroy our own.I think you have not cosidered the "little freedom" you define for the Worker in the Workplace. The Production of goods and services requires Labor, as well as Captial investment. It also requires Consumers, and a plan to dispose of Waste. Your notion that Owners make the rules and Labor can simply submit or leave is a small freedom indeed. Actually, it means that some are more free than others. They have more power and will decide the fate of all who choose to stay in their dominion. And it is their dominion. Their can be no dominion in a Free Society. All structures are subject to challenge, critique, reform, renewal, and revolution: this is the radical task of Free persons.I think your vision of Capitalism, and its actual historical presence, supports a Dominion society: domination is key, submission is the rule.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Quote:You mention all these Utopian combinations of political and economic systems as being possible, but where are they today?you are living in one. adam smith would be rolling in his grave about america right now. canada and many western european countries have combined many aspects of socialism into their societies as well. i am not advocating straight out socialism no more than straight out capitalism. no one economic system in its purest form is "good," a combination of the best elements of each system is best in my mind. just because it doesn't exist (yet) does not under mine the FACT that things can be done better, else we would still be stuck in the stone ages.Quote:Would you have the right to sell your intellectual property for the price that consumers are ready, willing and able to pay? Would you have the right to pursue your economic dream of becoming wealthy?yes, in a socialist based society with capitalistic influences, you darn well could do all of these things. this is not all or nothing. socialism just changes the ownership. could you still aim to be the best and make the most money? yes. pitch your ideas and intellectual property, absolutely.Quote:How about if I just love cars and I want to own a few classic cars along with a Ferrari? Is this possible or would a socialist society forbid and prohibit this inequity somehow? If I cannot work towards the ability to drive a luxury car, then your statement is not entirely true. I can buy a different brand or color of car, but the value of the car is wedged nicely between some set parameters.i think you are taking a very narrow view of a socialist society. no more so than a capitalist society with single payer universal health care such as canada could not exist in a capitalist economic system.Quote:Don't we say that our government is designed with all sorts of checks and balances in place? Naturally this doesn't operate magically without a helping hand from interested parties.hardly semantics, these checks and balances often don't work. therefore it is self correcting.Quote:In other words our system allowed for these things to be corrected. The point is that the system actually allows for problems to be corrected, whether they are political or economic problems.this is true in almost any system of the world, mad suggested as much already. even primitive societies without a formal system "self-correct" their societies when something happens that most people don't like. this is about people organization, political systems. nothing to do with economic systems.Quote:So this is your argument for how our system sucks? where the HELL did i suggest our system sucks??? Quote:The fact is only one system has led to prosperity and massive advances, and that is a democratic free market.this does not prove that there are better systems out there that have not yet been instituted.Quote:So you're calling it double-reversing, and we're calling it "correcting" or adjusting.all i was saying, is that such a self correcting system didn't get it right, it didn't correct but rather made things worse and need to be corrected again. i am not argueing against the fact that we have a good political system in place to make changes to our government. honestly, i think it is the best system (on paper) of the current large representative democratic nations. however, the two party partisan system is treatening the spirit of our checks and balances systems. i will not digress into that side topic, but just wanted to point out i was NOT saying we do not have a great system that allows for changes. we do and i think my comments have been taken out of context or interpreted not in the intention i intended.my major contention here is two fold: there is a MAJOR difference between political and economic systems and people often incorrectly mix up the two and use terms inter-changable. the economic systems available are generally not utilized in their purest forms but mix and match various aspects. secondly, just because we have a good system does not mean we have the best system. why be satisfied when there are inherent problems with a system?
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

(This message was left blank) Edited by: riverc0il at: 4/26/06 5:41 pm
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Classical Celt: I claim that in our society (here in America) we have a self-correcting mechanism for making changes within the society.And I say that it's not really "self-correcting" if parties have to struggle to ensure that changes are made. The Civil Rights movement is a readily available example. The changes made to our society in the wake of that movement were by no means the result of a "self-correcting mechanism". Those changes took a great deal of sacrafice and dedication, and despite having made a great deal of progress on those counts, there's still a great deal to be made. What the structure of our society did allow is a certain amount of leeway in terms of how social change is approached. That is, I think, a very commendable thing. But we should be wary of thinking that the advantages we have are somehow tantemount to the inevitability of improvement. If this all boils down to a semantic difference, then I apologize, but I don't see the amount of effort that goes into American social change as anything like automatic self-correction.I would welcome you to rattle off possible contenders. Forget that we may not agree or for that matter that we may strongly disagree.Again, it entirely depends on what you consider to be the purpose of society. If that purpose is to provide for the greatest number of liberties, then something closer to anarchy would be a strong contender. If it's to produce the best personalities, then I think there's something to be said for the social structure that produced the people of 6th and 7th century Athens. If equality is the aim, then this is, perhaps the greatest of all time. Until we can agree on a criteria, then I don't see how we can agree on even a list of possible contenders.What specific features are you referring to?A criteria by which to judge what counts as correction and what counts as unguided or regressive change, for one.What would you do, since you don't think that people will remember 4 years from now/ Maybe force a little correction down their throats.We've done it before, and I don't think many people in our present society would regret it. Take, for instance, the abolishment of slavery, accomplished largely through the use of force.That statement sounds like you may be getting ready to proclaim the the participants in the society can not make the corrections because their stupid or they need your help.Not my help. I'm not one to say what other people deserve or need.Changing direction however modestly is making a correction. It need not be a large correction.I don't see it that way. Changing direction is merely changing direction. Corrections are changes that improve a situation.This is not a status quo, this is an opportunity to change the minds of all people (or most) to your way of thinking.How is majority election not a form of status quo?Chris OConnor: Our political system is self-correcting in that the people of this country can toss a bad apple out during the next election, and in extreme situations even prior to an election. This is what Classical Celt means by "self-correcting."If that's what he means by "self-correcting", then fine. I think his terminology implies more than he intends, but it boils down to a semantic disagreement. My point was that these are opportunities for correction, but they are not systematic corrections, just systematic opportunities. The system corrects nothing; people make the corrections, and usually by forming lines of opposition within the society itself.GOD defiles Reason: Well this looks pretty important. Did the invention of the cotton gin really lead to an end of slavery? Does anyone else think that's true? If that's true, then what was the cause of the Civil War?It was undeniably a contributing factor, but I doubt you could prove that slavery as a whole died out due to the invention of the cotton gin. If the cotton gin were the primary factor in the demise of slavery, then you could have expected to see slave labor reconcentrated in other fields -- say, in the manufacture of gotton gins.That said, the cause of the Civil War was complex. Slavery was certainly a part, but it's naive to think that the whole of the North mobilized to teach the South a lesson in civics.Chris: So this is your argument for how our system sucks? Aren't there wars happening all over this world, both in communist and democratic nations alike?Would you be so adamant about your point of view if you didn't think that our points were veiled intimations that the whole American system sucks? I don't think either of us are saying that, Chris. We just want clarity.As for the issue of war, that wars are fought over the issues that divide America is a serious failing. What really makes our system of "self-correction" so great if it doesn't prevent violent conflict. Other nations "self-correct", if all you mean by self-correction is that another nation doesn't intervene and make social changes for them. If self-correction as an aspect of systematic government doesn't prevent violent conflict, then I'm not sure what real benefit it incurs.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

MadArchitect's second to last paragraph in the above reply says it better and more eloquently than i tried to. i think my most recent response prior to this reply was a little hot heated and i apologize for letting my stream of consciousness do the talking without censure through use of emphasis. i often attempt to type how i would speak something and it often doesn't look the way i intended when i re-read my statements. not going to edit anything, but just want to apologize for the hot headedness of that last response. easy to let the fingers get carried away when making a response to political directions of threads.hey, so yea, nietzsche... Edited by: riverc0il at: 4/26/06 11:19 pm
GOD defiles Reason

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

Quote:MadArchitect: It was undeniably a contributing factor, but I doubt you could prove that slavery as a whole died out due to the invention of the cotton gin. If the cotton gin were the primary factor in the demise of slavery, then you could have expected to see slave labor reconcentrated in other fields -- say, in the manufacture of gotton gins.I don't know. I'm certainly no expert. If the cotton gin really was a contributing facter to ending slavery, I think it's because it made things worse for slaves before making it better. I'm open to disputing arguments to this article I found on the web:"Although there was some hope immediately after the Revolution that the ideals of independence and equality would extend to the black American population, this hope died with the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. With the gin (short for engine), raw cotton could be quickly cleaned; Suddenly cotton became a profitable crop, transforming the southern economy and changing the dynamics of slavery. The first federal census of 1790 counted 697,897 slaves; by 1810, there were 1.2 million slaves, a 70 percent increase." (There's a lot more about it here: www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3narr6.html )Quote:MadArchitect: That said, the cause of the Civil War was complex. Slavery was certainly a part, but it's naive to think that the whole of the North mobilized to teach the South a lesson in civics.So help me out here. I'm still open about this. I think I posing the wrong question, though. The Southern states had their reasons for wanting to secede from the Union. What were those reasons? If slavery had not been an issue at all, then would any other reason hold water? Edited by: GOD defiles Reason at: 4/27/06 2:25 am
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Who is your favorite Philosopher?

Unread post

I'll be responding, but the past few days have been rough where I have had little time. I have read every single post and will enjoy jumping back in.It has felt like all of you are completely disgusted with the US and our political and economic systems, but from the last few posts that just might not be the case. We can discuss this further.To be honest I get completely worked up reading Dissident's posts. I couldn't disagree with him more, and then when 6 BookTalk members chime in along the same lines, well things are bound to get heated.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”