Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bull**** as well .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bull**** as well .

Then why do you like Hobbes?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because he's interesting. Remember I also listed Engles and I'm no where near being a socialist (though Berzerker would disagree ).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because he's interesting. Remember I also listed Engles and I'm no where near being a socialist (though Berzerker would disagree ).

Then you could explain why the state of nature is bull****. But that would get you involved...

And BTW: I'd like you to answer this question, eventually: who are the richer: the Chinese or the Swiss?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that would get you involved...

Exactly... in a word, I think it is about power.

I'd like you to answer this question, eventually: who are the richer: the Chinese or the Swiss?

EVENTUALLY?! I already answered it, it is my problem that you didn't bother seeing?

Of course the question there was: "What country is richer: China or Norway?"

Again: China, of course!

[Berzerker]

FakeBoris - Sheesh! Why bother quoting me when your "response" has nothing to do with my post?

Put a man on a desert island. Is he still a man? Yes. Does he have any property? No.

Sure he does, his body, his effort, and the island all belong to him.

Property is a contract, a concept invented by society. There is no such thing as property for animals, and there couldn't be to a man living alone.

"Society" didn't invent the concept of property, the first person who understood that "the fruits of my labor belong to me" invented the concept and that understanding would be taken for granted with only 1 person in the world. It's only when there are other people that this understanding might need to be conveyed to others (as if they are clueless).

Property defines the inanimate object's relationship towards a certain number of animate subjects- the humans.

Or just one person.

Technology has greatly increased production; but property of technology has also decreased the extent of its redistribution. Technology, by creating inanimate means of production- those that are not natural to the body, has made it possible to those who hold it to enslave the others who don't.

It sounds like you're complaining about patent laws now (did I mention patent laws?). They run out you know...

To this end, they enacted the idea of 'property' into the law (in fact property is probably the first law to appear), with the goal to confirm the power they had gained, with the help of a contract.

Who is "they"? I seriously doubt ancient dictators incorporated property into the law, they were the law. It was people who weren't dictators who pressured (or removed) autocrats into respecting property via the law. So you have that backwards too...

How could they have done this? Two possible ways.
1. With the appearance of the scarcity of ressources, which in turn instilled the fear to starve in our minds. Because at this point, the work required for being fed also started to imply competition with other humans about control of resources. This control could only be achieved by the physically stronger.
2. The appearance of technology and society gave humans new sentiments: pride and shame. Pride of being stronger, and shame of being weaker. With technology, currency, storage, etc, it was then possible for someone to accumulate more material than required for his survival. This is what we call pride, because this wealth could define his role in the society. (And his property of means of production also meant he could even more increase this wealth).

Holy Sh!t! No wonder these posts get so long, you just ramble on about stuff we weren't even debating then accuse me of missing your point.

So basically, property is a contract by which the weak agree by compromise to recognize someone else's 'possession' as permanent and inalienable. In return, their fear to starve is compensated by the promise that they would get a share of the production.

They do get a share of the production, but not for sitting on their butts. They get a share when they work for their share. But this isn't how property was invented... What you're really saying is that the "haves" agreed to give the "have nots" property in exchange for the latter not stealing from the former.
Can you produce this contract? Nope.

Property is not necessary to one's survival. Only possession is.

There's a difference?

Therefore, property has been acquired by force, by those who were either physically stronger or technologically astute, who in turn had been driven by either pride or the scarcity of resources. When property came to be part of the law, it was a legitimation of past plunders; and the subsequent wealth enjoyed by the landlords was used to raise armies to enforce even more strongly this property. Property is a refined form of plunder made possible by everyone's fundamental fears, which encourages us to abide by the owners of the means of production, since it is the most simple and less dangerous thing to do in order to live.

So the guy who sits on his butt is entitled to the labor of those who do work because the people who work plundered the guy who sits on his butt? Gee, not even slaveowners tried using that nonsense to justify slavery.

Look at the world today. There are many, many more goods produced than what will ever be required. Yet, people who are working can not even get food, shelter, drinking water and basic medications, because property is not fairly distributed.

Depends on where you live, if you live in some 3rd world backwater where dictators and their cronies don't respect property rights, then yes, many people won't have property because of the state, not because of capitalism and freedom.

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold. This is a direct consequence of plundering in its most "legitimate" form- ownership of the means of production.

If I invent fusion power, should you get an equal amount of the profit from my effort? If I don't give you an equal amount, have I "plundered" you? If I'm forced by the state to give you an equal amount, is that plunder or justice?

How could you possibly consider renting one's workforce at a price lower than what he would get in his state of 'nature' to be something else than plundering?

If I am a machinist without tools, a shop, etc., what is my value in my state of nature? Nada? If someone with money builds a shop and buys lathes, etc., and offers me $20/hour to machine parts, what is my value now? That's right, $20/hour minus what you socialists plunder. How can you claim I'm worth more without the investment made by others?

Once 'nature' has been denied, either by pride or scarcity, there is no going back, mainly because the power gained by the oligarchs is 'inalienable'. The only thing we can do is remember them that property is a PRIVILEGE that we granted them by contract, and that the counterpart to it is Social-Democracy. Failure to accept this can result in a war, made legitimate by 'breach of contract'.

Where is this contract? I want to see the signatures of all these people you claim agreed to hand you their money.

PS: I find it ironic that you believe a starving worker is free in his choice to work for Nike. Following your logic, wouldn't a citizen be free in his choice of a State that will not 'plunder' him, independantly of constraints such as moving costs (if starvation is not a constraint for you, then the cost of moving or the brutal enforcement of the law must not be neither)?

If there is such a state, there isn't. But you don't have to work for Nike, you can start your own shoe company, work in some other field, or try living off the charity of others. If we took all the money Nike makes, what percentage is taken by those evil overlords managing the company? Very small? Where does the rest of the money go? Advertising? Facilities? Labor? Shareholders (you know, the people who "lend" Nike money so they can expand)? Now, do you believe the guy who sews shoes together deserves as much as the guy who decides how Nike is managed? Does the waterboy deserve as much as the star athlete who attracts the fans?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bull**** as well .

It definitely is in Rousseau's case.

Hobbes' state of nature is one in which each person acts according to rational self interest. In fact it is identical with Ayn Rand's description of the ideal state of affairs.

It can be treated as a thought experiment, and it's a good one. Everyone should read The Logic of Leviathan by David Gauthier - a really good explanation of how it works.

It's not the case that Hobbes' argument relies on some spurious empirical claim about human nature, it follows deductively from an uncontroversial definition of rational self interest.

Of course there is a fair degree of natural altruism which he doesn't take account of, but I think he would be more and more correct in proportion to the number of people in the community (tribal and small communities find it easier to get reciprocatory behaviour out of their members).

I don't think the Left should be so down on Hobbes. He poses a challenge to market fundamentalism and perhaps to currently fashionable mixed-market doctrines. He also poses a challenge to the Left since we need some response to the claim that moral economies will never work.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

BTW could you guys include some - in your eyes - "must-read" books of your favourite philo heroes?

"Beyond Good and Evil" By Nietszche is something which I recommend.

Since Marx is German, I assume you've read him. Engles' "Scientific Socialism" is something which has been overlooked, but is a very nice pamplet-type work.

"Leviathan" by Hobbes and "Two Treatises on Government" by Locke are two basics of modern English philosophy.

"Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke is a GREAT work describing what 'modern conservatism' is (ie, slow gradual progress, realizing that tradition is the accumlated knowledge of history... ie, the anti-Nietzsche in that respect ).

You know Imran. You're a bright and honest guy. I think you need something better.

Read the Republic, Statesman and the Laws and Aristotle's Politics as well as Thucydides. These modern loons you've been reading are dull shallow cretins compared to the old masters.

[BeBMan]

I´ve read Thucydides. I´m studying history and political science, Thucydides is a must in ancient history

Of course we read also purely philosophical texts often, but I rather want to read complete books than only some pages here or there which just are important for some courses.

Thx for the recommendations so far

[Kuciwalker]

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold.

And this is why your logic is utterly moronic and overall, whiny.

"They have more stuff than I do! Waaaah!"

So what? Without technological progress and our economic system, you would have a lot less than you do now! You are complaining because things are "unfair" even though if they had been "fair" everyone would be worse off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read the Republic, Statesman and the Laws and Aristotle's Politics as well as Thucydides. These modern loons you've been reading are dull shallow cretins compared to the old masters.

I've read Plato and Aristotle (a bit of both) for my 'Greek Philosophy' Class back in undergrad (and I still have the complete works of Plato somewhere at home ). I haven't looked at Thucydides, but so far I've found the modern ones a bit more interesting... but that's just me .

Hobbes' state of nature is one in which each person acts according to rational self interest.

But of course. My statement was made in response that a state of nature really did/does exist. I think that there is always some sort of power structure as far as we know of human history.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
You are complaining because things are "unfair" even though if they had been "fair" everyone would be worse off.

Why so?

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'm not so sure about this. I don't know what he thought about the state, but I'm thinking instead about Hitler as the ideal representation of Nietzsche's ubermench. He praised the will to power, absolute power, which Hitler certainly had. From what I remember of Nietzsche, it isn't just about power itself, but the recognition of that power. He urged praise for power and strength. Instead of looking down on an arrogant, powerful, strong person,we should reserve our highest praise and honor for him. Hitler had that ultimate power Nietzsche so desired, so he should have the ultimate praise and honor in that society. Anything other than slavishly following the Fuhrer jeopardizes the Fuhrer's will to power.

Yes, Nietzsche values the will to power- but one based on a will to create: nietzsche immoratalizes the Creator, someone willing to destroy the world that is in order to make a new one- only in that respect MIGHT a man like HItler be great; not likel though, when you consider that Nietzsch calls Jesus great-for Jesus also destroyed a way of life, a worldview in order to create his own. What Nietzsche acknowledges is that great creation is always accompinied by great destruction, and what he hates are people who oppose great creation soley out of pity for thoise that will invariably suffer from the accompanying great destruction.

To anticipate your point, you no doubt are arguing that Nietzsche's advice was general and directed to no one specifically. Thus all people should strive for power, and to excel, and that when one does this there can be no strict Nazi like state. Perhaps, but this would make Nietzsche a hypocrite. He certainly did not believe in equality between people, in any sense. The notion of equality is in direct contrast with the pure will to power. Your power jeopardizes my power, thus the best way for me to be powerful is to diminish your power. Nietzsche was not an egalitarian philosopher, you delude yourself to believe so.

One does not have to be an egalitarian thinkier to hate the Naizs- look at you annalysis: if you are powerful you harm my power, thus I shall destroy you- well, one: If you are powerful, then you need not fear other powerful ones unless they seek to attack you- power is NOT a zero-sum game were there can be only one powerful person. Nietzsche admirers the "great men", but he hates followers. Even if he acknowledged Hitler as a great man, his followers would be as bad as any follower of the slave mentality-plus, the system Hitler is trying to make codifies the slave metality:blind following. Nazi;s teahces too many "You shalt not's", the sort of ideas Neitzsche whishes to overcome. Again, look at Jesus- for Nietzsche, jesus is a maverick person, who by himsaelf creates a brand new morality that overthrows those that exists (and causes great suffering as well i the overthrow), but then his followers become these (in his eyes) pathetic, life denying individuals-in essence, Jesus the great man invents a great thing, and the weak of the world cling to it and debase it with their fear and hate.

Again, I'm not saying Nietzsche is calling for anti-semitism, or german nationalism, I'm sure he wouldn't care one way or the other. My beef with him is the very fact that he wouldn't care. Power is all that matters, how that power is attained is inconsequential. If absolute power can be attained through scapegoating and slaugtering an ethnic minority and then building a war machine to destroy your neighbors, then so be it, I'm sure Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with it.

Actually, Nietzsche did care about one or the other: to him, German nationalism (and he writes this) was a pathetic things- it was pathetic becuase it was driven from fear and weakness: ditto for Anti-semitism. To him, anti-semites were pathetic fearfull individuals lashing out as slaves do at people who offended their whish for suffering by not having succombed. Remember that for Nietzsche, HATE, which is so central to Nazism, is a creation not of the strong, who through their strenght need not fear and thus not hate- but from the weak, who hate their oppressors. For Nietzsche anti-semites exemplified these weak men whjo hated a fictional oppressor, the Jew.

Plus if you through in the Nazi actions of ethnic clensing to produce a superior race of humans through extermination of lesser races, selection of higher people and so on, I think they match up quite nicely. Not to say Nietzsche is necessarily in favor of German superiority. Any nation who tried something like Nazism would probably be ok in Nietzsche's book.

Nietzsch doesn;t give a hoot about "peoples"- any attempt to 'breed' a new man would be an abomination- after all, in order to breed, you need a wiling HERD of men- and any men willing or working to be bred simply can't be creators or great men in any sense of the word.

To summarize, its not that Nietzsche calls for murder, oppression, and genocide, but rather that he is entirely indifferent about it is a big reason that drives me to despise Nietzsche and all he stood for.

You are correct than in no way nietzsche calls for a reduction in suffering. For him suffreing was part of life- what he hated most was the idea of stiflling creation simply for pity's sake. For him pity is evil: what does it mean to pity? Why not stop pitying and do what is best for them, instead of some miserable alms?

As for allowing repressiona nd opression and nationalism- nietzsche was a suppoirter of the idea of one single Europe united by common ideas, not byu a single suppressing state, which in order to maintian itself must crush creative embers: Nazism is not just about racism and hate- it is a from of facism, a modern political theory centered around nation-states: and Nietzsche hated nation states. You can not possible accept the tennets of nationalism if you do not believe the Nation is worht saving, and given the vitrol he has for the German nation, of which he was part, I failt to see how any group that attempted to "glorify" and deify what he found most comtemptible about Germans would ever gain his support.

As for the overman- people often confuse him with the blond beasts-thinking for Nietzsche they are one and the same. They are not. For him, a great beast would be someone like the Greek heros. Were Greek heros evil men?They could be malicious, proudful, murderous- they killed whom they liked, enslaved their enemies- yet we still call them heros. To Nietzsche, while these men were to be amdired more than the slaves becuase of thieir acceptance of the reality of Life (which destroys and creates endlessly- you can not live and thrive and grow without killing and ending something), for him they lacked depth of character- he calls them blond beats exactly becuase they are still animal like. He hates the slaves for giving up in life and warping thier inner selves into Hate- an emotion driven by utter inability. You hate what you have no power over, what you think you can not control, what you fear: those trully strong do not fear, which explains why he has a dim view of punishment. For hyim, punsihment is an acknowledgement of your weakness and fear: As Nietzshce states, the strongest man would have no need to punish, secure in the knowledge the criminal can do nothing to him at all. BUt even as he hates the slave, that internalizing, that deepening of feeling tat allows the slave to channel his will to power to enslave himself also makes man capable of greater things- now he has control over himself- he is deep enough to go forward. Think of his annalogy of the camel, lion and child in Zarathustra: The Transformation goes from a camel,a beast of burden who takes more and more things upon itself, more and more suffering- until it si ready to end this, to overcme this. Now it becomes the lion, who takes on the great golden dragon, which signifies all the rules and commandments of the current system- and as a lion it overcomes the dragon. But finally, the lion transform into a child, a creator of new things, filled with wonder. One of the reasons one of his books is called the "Gay science" was becuase he wanted science to be life affriming, "jolly" as it were, not the musty domain of "serious" old men in dank rooms.

Nazism, and facism in general would be labelled by Nietzsche as late levl developments of the slave mentality- slaves so deep in thier hate and fear they would deputize others to exterminate their enemies, but with no thought to creating anything new- much of nazism is based on glorifying a past, a past that for Nietzsche was everything BUT glorious.

Yes, he is no an egalitarian, and he does not value pity of compassion- but that alone in no way means he would support Nazism, which is far more than simply a will to power trying to affirm life.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Why so?

You really think that without modern technology we would be better off?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
You really think that without modern technology we would be better off?

No, but I wonder why you link modern technology with unfairness.