Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

They could move assembly jobs to low cost areas, but that would mean firing assembly line workers who "own" the company. What do they do?

Simple Ned, they die. This is why worker-owned corporations won't be competitive. They can't be as efficient as those who realize that layoffs may be needed in bad times.

But this efficiency is an illusion. The company has simply externalized the costs to the welfare system or the families of the sacked workers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The company has simply externalized the costs to the welfare system or the families of the sacked workers.

So? The companies are more efficient aren't they? Society isn't required to be efficient (and normally isn't). Companies, on the other hand, should be. They are the drivers of technology and progress.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I suggest that all socialist economies must eventually become capitalist or state-owned. As even a simple example suggests, worker owned businesses (save for professional partnerships) cannot survive for long.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

Hmm...restraining nastiness was not on your list of personal improvements for the new year?

Since when is making sure people pay attention nastyness? you pansie!

I read the post I was responding to, I didn't know I was required to read every post in the thread before responding to the one I decided to address. Care to point it out?

It does help you to know what is going n in the thread, speically since OncleBoris was commenting on what I had said.

You mean once capitalism creates a rich country for communism to impoverish?

Communism would not impoverish, given that the state would already be rich- and only under some screwed up definition is going form vast wealth to wealth an act of impovershiment. What Marx realizes is that for communism to work you need a very productive society. To use far out terms, but still a worthwhile easy to see example the total communism of start trek works becasue the society is SO rich no one must actually toil to meet their basic needs and is free to do whatever the hell they want, without being oppressed or oppressing, nor seperated and alienate from what they produce.

The fact he needs a rich country to experiment on says alot right there. If his ideas were so good, they should apply to poor countries as well... But if wealth is not the goal of Marxism, what is the goal? "Equality"? Equal poverty?

WHAT? Since when is that ever true? Unievrsal heathcare coverage is a great idea..one poor states could never affrod. Space exploration is agreat idea, one the poor can not afford. The goal of communism is a system in which no human being goes hungry unless they want to be hungry, in which no human bieng is forced to slave away doing something they don;t like simply in order to meet thier basic needs, so forth and so on. Basically, freeing man from eocnomic shackles.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala


You're in my least fav list now, too .

Evil Finns

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon
Here's why logical truths are not about the world.

let p and q stand for any proposition about the world you like. p and q are true or false depending on whether they match up with a state of affairs or don't - that's dependent on the world.

Now take the complex proposition "If p then q". The same goes for this one. But because it is complex, it's truth is dependent on the truth of both p and q and a set of rules that define material implication ("If.. then..." statements).

That rule is "If p then q" is true under all conditions except when p is true and q is false. Similar truth functions exist for "and" and "or" (and we can define these operations in terms of each other).

But take the valid inference (1) "If p then q"; (2) "p"; (C) therefore "q". The relation between the premises and the conclusion is also one of material implication (since if the premises are true, the conclusion must be).

This can be proved by formulating the conditional If ((If p then q) and p) then q

Following the rule for material implication it turns out that whatever values you assign to p and q the conditional always turns out true. So the truth of the conditional is indenpdent of whatever way the world is (since p and q and be both true or both false or one or the other and the conditional will still turn out true).

I believe that's why people think Rand is wrong.

Shall we believe that you are a strong proponent of Marx 'historical/material dialectics'?
Or am I getting it all wrong?

[Do you agree, great Agaton?]
[Shuddup. I need all help I can get].

[Ben Kenobi]

Going back to the original thread topic...

Favourite philosopher that I actually learned about in my philosophy class: Kant

I like him because he is a deontologist, who uses a few simple rules to really get a handle on how to assess your moral actions.

I don't like him because he has a hard time with motivation. It is one thing to talk about a duty, but to whom do you do the duty? You can't really live as a strict Kantian, he gives you the tools, but not the drive.

Secondly, I don't like his reliance upon moral actors. People who are without reason find themselves stripped of protection as persons. The moral law may only hold reasonable people responsible for their actions, but they can have duties to those who are not themselves moral actors.

Least favourite philosopher:
Nietzsche.

Died in a sanitarium. 'Nuff said.

As for my real fave, I'd probably say Augustine, though I have to read more of his works.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Shall we believe that you are a strong proponent of Marx 'historical/material dialectics'?
Or am I getting it all wrong?

[Do you agree, great Agaton?]
[Shuddup. I need all help I can get].

Nope. I have a healthy scepticism of Hegelianism and all its offshoots. The development of economic organisation is something to be studied empirically, rather than metaphysically.

Hegel's conception of logic was destroyed by the development of the propositional calculus. The general consensus among analytic philosophers is that this destroys any credibility his system might have had.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The company has simply externalized the costs to the welfare system or the families of the sacked workers.

So? The companies are more efficient aren't they? Society isn't required to be efficient (and normally isn't). Companies, on the other hand, should be. They are the drivers of technology and progress.

Um.. I'd say the opposite. Our social organisation ought to be as efficient as possible. That means that externalities cannot be ignored. This is the main reason why we have the state and its power to enact punitive measures against externalizers (or rewards if the externalities are positive - see subsidies can be good sometimes).

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Originally posted by GePap


Since when is making sure people pay attention nastyness? you pansie!

Advice is advice, snide "advice" is nastiness

It does help you to know what is going n in the thread, speically since OncleBoris was commenting on what I had said.

I read your post, you didn't explain why communism can't transform a poor country into a wealthy one. You said that according to Marx, communism needs an already wealthy nation so there aren't shortages. If there are shortages, then everyone is shorted equally, that shouldn't prevent communism from producing the wealth to achieve the communist state. That doesn't explain why communism can't produce the needed wealth, only that there will be shortages until it does produce greater wealth. Hence my question: why can't communism produce the needed wealth?

Communism would not impoverish, given that the state would already be rich- and only under some screwed up definition is going form vast wealth to wealth an act of impovershiment. What Marx realizes is that for communism to work you need a very productive society.

But if communism can't produce enough wealth to drag a country out of poverty, how can it sustain enough wealth to maintain an already wealthy country? The result would be a reduction in wealth with poverty somewhere down the line.

To use far out terms, but still a worthwhile easy to see example the total communism of start trek works becasue the society is SO rich no one must actually toil to meet their basic needs and is free to do whatever the hell they want, without being oppressed or oppressing, nor seperated and alienate from what they produce.

Yes, communism works in Hollywood. I want to be the ship's captain and you can clean the toilets.

WHAT? Since when is that ever true? Unievrsal heathcare coverage is a great idea..one poor states could never affrod. Space exploration is agreat idea, one the poor can not afford.

But if communism can't create the wealth to provide all this in a poor country, how long before it wrecks a wealthy country that can? If Marx believes capitalist systems are the most productive, why does he believe communism can sustain the production to keep them wealthy? If you needed a 400 hp motor to go 180 mph, how would replacing the motor with a 250 hp motor maintain that speed? There would be a drop off in production followed by shortages.

The goal of communism is a system in which no human being goes hungry unless they want to be hungry, in which no human bieng is forced to slave away doing something they don;t like simply in order to meet thier basic needs, so forth and so on.

Who wants to clean toilets?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Who wants to clean toilets?

Cleanliness nuts who want to take a ****?

[Berzerker]

Wouldn't that be exploiting their illness?

[Ecthy]

I do Kant but I don't do philosphy cause it's pointless.

Just explain me this: what is "utilitarianism"?

[Ned]

PARABLE OF THE FIELD PART THREE

The next year, the field workers returned to the farm to find that their coworker who owned the horse had been killed for his greed like the owner of the farm the year before. They were met by the Communist Party member who stood on the platform and explained to them that the Communist Party had taken over the farm and the horse, and that henceforth the workers would be part of a commune where they will all share the means of production, the farm and the horse, and share equally in the proceeds of the farm, but that the 50% of the crop that would have gone to the capitalist pig landlord or the capitalist pig horse owner would instead go to the Communist Party for distribution to the needy. The field workers would be left with the same income as the previous year, only they would have to share that income equally.

The Communist Party explained, " In the commune, the workers decide issues democratically. You choose who is to plow, who is to plant and who is a harvest. Here is the horse. Begin."

The field workers met among themselves. The workers agreed that plowing was the hardest job of all and that it was unfair that the person who did the most work would only receive the same pay.

They went back to the Communist Party member and said, " We have met, but none of us want to plow because that is the hardest job of all."

They Communist Party member thought for a while and then suggested in a polite but calm voice, "Then I suggest you draw straws. Because if no one plows, there will be no crop; and if there is no crop, there will be no harvest; and if there is no harvest, there will be no food for you or for the needy."

So the field workers drew straws. The workers selected to plow sullenly took the horse into the field and began to plow. But in order to reduce the amount of labor he had to expand to be equal to that of the other field workers who would plant and harvest, he widdened the spacing between the rows. He was able to finish plowing an approximate one third of the time as before.

The field was then planted and the crop grew. When the crop was ready, the field workers returned for the harvest. They went into the field and began to harvest the crop. Soon though, the worker that had slept under shady oak tree in the years previous again went to the shady oak tree and sat down. The other field workers then stopped working and met among themselves. "Is this fair for one of us to not work but share in the harvest?" They all agreed that it is not fair. They said to the worker lying under the shady oak tree, " If you do not help out on the harvest, you shall not receive a share in the harvest."

But the lazy field worker ignored his comrades and fell asleep.

The field workers finished the havest. When they did, they noticed that it was one third of the previous crops. This made them unhappy because even though this year they would have equal shares in the half the crop, their shares would be one third of their shares in last year's crop.

The Communist Party member was equally unhappy. He said the field workers, "You have produced only one third of your quota. This is not acceptable. You will not be permitted to profit from your laziness as each of you owes a duty to each other and to the fatherland to work hard and to produce. Remember, 'From each according to his ability' means that you have to work as hard as you are able."

The Communist Party member then informed the field workers that two thirds of the crop would be given to the Communist Party for distribution to the needy, and they would share equally in the rest."

On hearing this, the field workers gave off a great shout and said, "But if you do that, we will receive far less than we did when we were working for the farmer for wages of $10. We shall all be poor and starving."

The Communist Party member then said, " Then next year, work harder! It is your responsibility that the crop is only one third of the quota. The people of the fatherland have to eat and those responsible for insufficient production will not live in luxury at the expense of the people."

Then the field workers raised the issue of the field worker who had slept under shady oak tree. "Sir," they began. "This one slept under shady oak tree and did not help in the harvest. We object that he should take an equal share from us because that would be unfair. Besides, this year we don't even have enough to properly feed our families. If we have to give him a portion of our income, we are going to be even poorer and hungrier."

The Communist Party member said, "Remember, to each according to his need." He continued, "Even though some of us may not produce as much as others, each of us has a right to an equal share."

With that, the field worker who is slept under shady oak tree shouted, "Long live the Communist Party!"

The field workers then rioted. They took the gun of the Communist Party member and shot him. Then they shot the worker who slept under shady oak tree.

The next day the Red Army came and killed all the reactionary running dog capitalist plotters.

The field workers died for their greed.

[Ned]

PARABLE OF THE FIELD PART THREE

The next year, the field workers returned to the farm to find that their coworker who owned the horse had been killed for his greed like the owner of the farm the year before. They were met by the Communist Party member who stood on the platform and explained to them that the Communist Party had taken over the farm and the horse, and that henceforth the workers would be part of a commune where they will all share the means of production, the farm and the horse, and share equally in the proceeds of the farm, but that the 50% of the crop that would have gone to the capitalist pig landlord or the capitalist pig horse owner would instead go to the Communist Party for distribution to the needy. The field workers would be left with the same income as the previous year, only they would have to share that income equally.

The Communist Party explained, " In the commune, the workers decide issues democratically. You choose who is to plow, who is to plant and who is a harvest. Here is the horse. Begin."

The field workers met among themselves. The workers agreed that plowing was the hardest job of all and that it was unfair that the person who did the most work would only receive the same pay.

They went back to the Communist Party member and said, " We have met, but none of us want to plow because that is the hardest job of all."

They Communist Party member thought for a while and then suggested in a polite but calm voice, "Then I suggest you draw straws. Because if no one plows, there will be no crop; and if there is no crop, there will be no harvest; and if there is no harvest, there will be no food for you or for the needy."

So the field workers drew straws. The workers selected to plow sullenly took the horse into the field and began to plow. But in order to reduce the amount of labor he had to expand to be equal to that of the other field workers who would plant and harvest, he widdened the spacing between the rows. He was able to finish plowing an approximate one third of the time as before.

The field was then planted and the crop grew. When the crop was ready, the field workers returned for the harvest. They went into the field and began to harvest the crop. Soon though, the worker that had slept under shady oak tree in the years previous again went to the shady oak tree and sat down. The other field workers then stopped working and met among themselves. "Is this fair for one of us to not work but share in the harvest?" They all agreed that it is not fair. They said to the worker lying under the shady oak tree, " If you do not help out on the harvest, you shall not receive a share in the harvest."

But the lazy field worker ignored his comrades and fell asleep.

The field workers finished the havest. When they did, they noticed that it was one third of the previous crops. This made them unhappy because even though this year they would have equal shares in the half the crop, their shares would be one third of their shares in last year's crop.

The Communist Party member was equally unhappy. He said to the field workers, "You have produced only one third of your quota. This is not acceptable. You will not be permitted to profit from your laziness as each of you owes a duty to each other and to the fatherland to work hard and to produce. Remember, 'From each according to his ability' means that you have to work as hard as you are able."

The Communist Party member then informed the field workers that two thirds of the crop would be given to the Communist Party for distribution to the needy, and they would share equally in the rest."

On hearing this, the field workers gave off a great shout and said, "But if you do that, we will receive far less than we did when we were working for the farmer for wages of $10. We shall all be poor and starving."

The Communist Party member then said, " Then next year, work harder! It is your responsibility that the crop is only one third of the quota. The people of the fatherland have to eat and those responsible for insufficient production will not live in luxury at the expense of the people."

Then the field workers raised the issue of the field worker who had slept under shady oak tree. "Sir," they began. "This one slept under shady oak tree and did not help in the harvest. We object that he should take an equal share from us because that would be unfair. Besides, this year we don't even have enough to properly feed our families. If we have to give him a portion of our income, we are going to be even poorer and hungrier."

The Communist Party member said, "Remember, to each according to his need." He continued, "Even though some of us may not produce as much as others, each of us has a right to an equal share."

With that, the field worker who is slept under shady oak tree shouted, "Long live the Communist Party!"

The field workers then rioted. They took the gun of the Communist Party member and shot him. Then they shot the worker who slept under shady oak tree.

The next day the Red Army came and killed all the reactionary running dog capitalist plotters.

The field workers died for their greed.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I do Kant but I don't do philosphy cause it's pointless.

Just explain me this: what is "utilitarianism"?

Utilitarianism is basically the philosophy that a decision should be made based on what is best for the majority of the group (society, social club, whatever). The pros to this philosophy is that it should benefit a larger percentage of the population because the decision has been made for the majority. The drawback is that the minority will suffer, sometimes horribly.

My philosophy professor in college always hit upon the story of the lynching mob. The majority of the group wanted to lynch someone because they didn't like him or because he did something they considered wrong. Under utilitarianism this would be ok as the majority will benefit from having this thorn in their side removed as per their want. The downside is that the lynchee is about to be hanged. It's a flawed philosophy, mainly brought up to prove a moral point. It's a "everyones doing it so it must be ok" deal.

[chequita guevara]

Ned, do you think I should write a simlarly pedantic parable?

[Agathon]

PARABLE OF THE FIELD - PART FOUR

The Communists stood over Ned's twitching body as they smoked cigars that Fidel Castro had provided.

"He really shouldn't have gone on and on like that" said Che Guevara.

"Yes, it was really boring and took ages to read", said Trotsky.

"He deserved to die", said Stalin.

"Oh shut up Stalin, you say that about everybody," said Adam Smith.

"What the **** are you doing here anyway," said Guevara to Smith.

"Shut the **** up you Argie Jesus wannabe, or my secret will get out!", replied Smith, "in any case, we've done the people a service by saving them from having to read Parts five thru two-hundred-and-seventy-nine of Ned's sorry tale".

"It was a just slaying", said Lenin.

"Indeed it was", boomed a voice from a break in the clouds.

"Is that you God, you reactionary old bastard?" said Trotsky.

"Yes it is", replied God, "and I'll have less of the 'reactionary' stuff from you, or else. Anyway, I have to go now, that George W Bush is in serious need of a good smiting."

Smiling, our revolutionaries returned to their macabre task.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, do you think I should write a simlarly pedantic parable?

Please, Che. Show us how communism benefits the workers and is not unfair in the slightest.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

For a philosophy thread this has to be one of themost entertaining.

All we need now are the strippers and midgets.

By the by Ned, I love pedantics.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I read your post, you didn't explain why communism can't transform a poor country into a wealthy one. You said that according to Marx, communism needs an already wealthy nation so there aren't shortages. If there are shortages, then everyone is shorted equally, that shouldn't prevent communism from producing the wealth to achieve the communist state. That doesn't explain why communism can't produce the needed wealth, only that there will be shortages until it does produce greater wealth. Hence my question: why can't communism produce the needed wealth?

Communism can create wealth- but not as much-that is the point, that capitalism is the most productive system; Any state that tries to cut in will take longer to reach the stage at which they are rich enough for Marxs; vision.

Think about the command economies of Russia and China- under the command stte economies these states saw immense ecomic growth. Russia in 1970 was vastly richer than semi-capitalist Russia of 1914 and certainly richer than a capitalist state such as Guatemala- the point is not that a command economy made Russia poor, but that Russia was not as ruch as it could have been, becuase even in 1980 Russians were far better of economically than vast portions of the world's peoples, including many is western back-anti communist regimes.

But if communism can't produce enough wealth to drag a country out of poverty, how can it sustain enough wealth to maintain an already wealthy country? The result would be a reduction in wealth with poverty somewhere down the line.

How would wealth be lost? Wealth accumulates worldwide, and can only be transferred around. This is a question of, once the real revolution starts,would other capitalist systems remian, or would they follow suit, thus preventing a mass flux of wealth from one system to the other.

But if communism can't create the wealth to provide all this in a poor country, how long before it wrecks a wealthy country that can? If Marx believes capitalist systems are the most productive, why does he believe communism can sustain the production to keep them wealthy? If you needed a 400 hp motor to go 180 mph, how would replacing the motor with a 250 hp motor maintain that speed? There would be a drop off in production followed by shortages.

You miss the point- while in,ate stages of capitalism there is lots of wealth, it is in the hands of very very few,so that the masses see very little, at least relatively. Marx does not mind if the era of superrich ends utterly, as long as everyone who was poorer comes up significantly.

Who wants to clean toilets?

So why does you dream capitalist system need people cleaning toilets? Or picking fruit?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
For a philosophy thread this has to be one of themost entertaining.

All we need now are the strippers and midgets.

By the by Ned, I love pedantics.

Long live the Communist Party!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
PARABLE OF THE FIELD - PART FOUR

The Communists stood over Ned's twitching body as they smoked cigars that Fidel Castro had provided.

"He really shouldn't have gone on and on like that" said Che Guevara.

"Yes, it was really boring and took ages to read", said Trotsky.

"He deserved to die", said Stalin.

"Oh shut up Stalin, you say that about everybody," said Adam Smith.

"What the **** are you doing here anyway," said Guevara to Smith.

"Shut the **** up you Argie Jesus wannabe, or my secret will get out!", replied Smith, "in any case, we've done the people a service by saving them from having to read Parts five thru two-hundred-and-seventy-nine of Ned's sorry tale".

"It was a just slaying", said Lenin.

"Indeed it was", boomed a voice from a break in the clouds.

"Is that you God, you reactionary old bastard?" said Trotsky.

"Yes it is", replied God, "and I'll have less of the 'reactionary' stuff from you, or else. Anyway, I have to go now, that George W Bush is in serious need of a good smiting."

Smiling, our revolutionaries returned to their macabre task.

[BeBro]

yeah, that´s a good one

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


Nope. I have a healthy scepticism of Hegelianism and all its offshoots. The development of economic organisation is something to be studied empirically, rather than metaphysically.

Hegel's conception of logic was destroyed by the development of the propositional calculus. The general consensus among analytic philosophers is that this destroys any credibility his system might have had.

Well, we could get started on this one, and you'd beat me, but the idea of Marx' dialectics as a structuralist/semiologic ideology makes sense.

And BTW, nice story about Ned.

[Oncle Boris]

All right, Berzerker.

If there was no law, you just couldn't own a field larger than what you can plow yourself, unless you were using brute force to keep it.

Let's say you had a field ten times as large as what is needed for you. You hire 9 workers to do the job. You tell them: since the field is mine, you're only getting 50% of the harvest from your work. The other 50% is for me.

Then they'd say: The field's yours, eh? How is it?

Berzerker: I built a fence around it.

Them: Who cares? you're only plowing 10% of it anyway. What you're not plowing can't be yours. Too bad for the fence.

Then, the strongest of the 10 guys would probably end up controlling the field after a fist fight. The winner thought: "now that I've won, I want to secure my field, because that fight was hard. I could well lose it next time."
So the winner said: OK guys, you'll be getting 60% of the harvest, and you'll be giving me the rest. In exchange, you'll recognize that the field is mine. Then the idea spread up; one of the neighboring landlords became the king, and it was decided he would collect 2% of the fields' harvest to pay for guards that would enforce the new 'contract'.
This the disappearance of possession and the birth of property. Property is a possession legitimated with a 'contract'.

The rest is history: the landlords using their wealth to increase their hold on the 'means of production', using their oligopoly to impose detrimental conditions on the workers.

If you can prove that the first guy who claimed some land as his own did it without holding a power of some sort (muscles, shrewdness, or a super-productive new harvesting tool on which he owned the 'patent'), then I might start listening to you.