Thread: Subjectivism... The death of any intelligence.

I agree with every word you said.
People these days just do that to dodge the fact that they're WRONG. It's so annoying. And how about the "Well, we will never agree, so let's just leave it at this."? Quite possibly even worse.

Beating them up might be a little harsh though. How about just a good old slap in the face?

Well, you either have freedom or not. There's no such thing as anything inbetween. I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a frame of the way one acts. You can basically do whatever the fuck you want, even if it endangers yourself, as long as you don't harm OTHERS [/b]

\"The terms \"anarchy\" and \"anarchism\" are derived from the Greek '''' (\"without archons (rulers)\"). Thus \"anarchism,\" in its most general meaning, is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word \"anarchy\", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social harmony. ...\"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

i consider myself an anarchist, and my philosophy is basically summed up in your words \"do whatever the fuck you want, even if it endangers yourself, as long as you don't harm OTHERS\".

i need no external rule or ruler. i realize my self, and my self alone is responsible for my actions. you seem to agree.

So please... Have a heart... Beat up a subjectivist. [/b]

this contradicts your previous statement, which i quoted above (unless it is just an idiom you have used to vent frustration, in which case *shrugs*).

the only person who annoys me as much, or more than a 'subjectivist' is a hypocrite...

namaste

i need no external rule or ruler. i realize my self, and my self alone is responsible for my actions. you seem to agree.[/b]

And that's just why an anarchic soceity cannot exist. Because there will always be people without these standards. Eventually, somebody will harm someone else for personal gain, and things will escalate. Anarchy might be how the world should be, but sadly it is also how the world cannot be, at least at present.

Subjective Experience goes way beyond just conceptual thought. An original thought -- a person's unique opinion -- may have some subjective elements, but, then again, there may be a great deal of objective content in a person's unique opinion. Every time somebody goes over a set of facts and comes to some generalized conclusion, there is a mix of subjective and objective, and the objective may well predominate.

But Subjectivity goes far deeper than these conceptualizations. Imagination, fantasy, vision, dream. Our Psychies are afloat in a sea of Subjective Content.

To say that Subjectivity is stupid. Well, that may be your opinion. But I think its stupid. But that may just be my opinion.

Well that's your opinion.

Freedom is overrated. It's only good to be free when you know you could be more free. As long as you don't know better, it doesn't matter.

And most of the time if people say 'well that's your opinion' they just have nothing to say, and they suck. Ignore them.

But sometimes it's really just an oppinion. There is no good and bad, just oppinions

The thing about beating up subjectivists was not meant to be serious. Guess it was a biiit out of context.

Anarchy dosen't work. You need a basic framework. This is why libertarianism is the most fitting political system for my views.

I don't deny the fact that we think and speak subjectively at times. But most people go so far it makes you want to puke.

Originally posted by Jalexxi

i need no external rule or ruler. i realize my self, and my self alone is responsible for my actions. you seem to agree.

And that's just why an anarchic soceity cannot exist. Because there will always be people without these standards. Eventually, somebody will harm someone else for personal gain, and things will escalate. Anarchy might be how the world should be, but sadly it is also how the world cannot be, at least at present.[/b]

you can tell the future? that's very impressive..

i am not naive. i do not expect everyone to be able to control their greed or violence. i speak only for myself. you are still stuck in the herd mentality. "nobody else will change, so why should i bother". if everyone thought in such a way, nothing would ever change. "society" is simply an abstraction for the cumulative interaction between 6 billion individuals, and their daily choices.

a few thousand years ago different societies sacrificed their children to gods. they ate the flesh of their enemies. some treated women like cattle (to a much greater extent than today).
do you think the entire society woke up one day and suddenly realized these things didn't truly benefit anyone? of course not. certain individuals started to say "i don't give a fuck what other people are doing, i will refuse to support such things personally, and they can do what the will to me."

escalation only happens when retribution is taken.

Originally posted by Asher
you can tell the future? that's very impressive..

Not really.

Humanity is extremely predictable.

Originally posted by Asher
i am not naive. i do not expect everyone to be able to control their greed or violence. i speak only for myself. you are still stuck in the herd mentality. "nobody else will change, so why should i bother".

I'm not using it as an excuse not to change, I'm just pointing out that that person who will not accept responsibility for their own actions will cause others to do so as well unless their is some governing institution who handles this person. You agree that there might be people that can't control themselves, but I think that you might be forgetting the effect that people who act out of greed and violence spawn more of it in others. And there's no governing institution to stop that in the anarchic system, making it prone to escalation.

do you think the entire society woke up one day and suddenly realized these things didn't truly benefit anyone? of course not. certain individuals started to say "i don't give a fuck what other people are doing, i will refuse to support such things personally, and they can do what the will to me."

escalation only happens when retribution is taken.[/b]

Indeed, and such individuals are admirable. Yet, although they might be very brave to stand up to the beliefs of the masses, we should check whether their opinion is the right one, and not measure it's greatness by the bravery of the pioneers. It's the same with anarchy, we should not look at what the system wants to accomplish, but what it will accomplish. And the bottom line is, you just can't trust people not to take retribution. Not yet. Anarchy may be possible in the future if mankind changes, but it is a no-go in today's world.

i know where you're coming from jalexxi.

perhaps an example from personal experience will clarify my reasoning though.

i was at a bar once, quite drunk. as i walked out at closing time i briefly glanced at a rather large, cruel looking bloke (later i found out from a mutual aquaintance that he was drunk and high on cocaine, and had been in prison for attempted murder).

he pushed me violently, and then punched me in the face, without any warning. i staggered to my feet bloody as he took a fighting stance, while a couple of his buddies started cheering him on.

i looked him in the eyes and said somethign to the effect of 'hey brother, what have i ever done to you? i'm not afraid of you...kill me if you want", and continued to look him in the eye as i stood my ground, arms at my sides.

he muttered something, spit, and walked away as his lackeys tried to convince him to mangle me.


i have known many violent people. every single one has some form of abuse or neglect in their background. if you confront them with compassion they usually back down.


*shrugs* i am not going to try and convince anybody that 'anarchism' is the solution to life's problems and injustices. it is just a concept, a word.

but if i didn't believe that widespread tolerance, harmony, and universal love was possible, i would have committed suicide years ago. if i believed humans would always be ignorant, illogical, violent animals, i would have dropped out of life's struggle.
if someone was willing to attack me for a material item, i would simply give it to them. if they were willing to attack me for the feelng of power and domination over another human being, i would passively allow them to beat me to death, knowing they could have been a different person if they had been raised in the society i lived to bring about.

if you are not familiar with the story, perhaps look into ghandi, and the non-violent rebellion againts british opression. if they had tried to fight the british with weapons, the violence would have escalated. the violence would probably continue even now. but when you confront killers with a human face, with the trusting eyes of a human individual, they can rarely kill in cold blood- hired mercenary, or tortured, warped and lonely person.

namaste

I agree with you, fully.
I'm not contradicting your beliefs, I'm just pointing out that right now, anarchy does not work. That is all.

Anarchy shmanarchy. Where's the production capacity?

True communism is the ideal system, but equally impossible.

Communism.. pfft.

Yes bringing everyone to the same level and not letting anyone show their true talents or use their abilities is a wonderful idea.

It's about the equivilent of an old man who only has one eye. Then someone is inclined to give him an eye, then someone else gives THAT man an eye. It goes around and around until everyone is blind.

People are not the same and should never be forced to be the same.

Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
Communism.. pfft.

Yes bringing everyone to the same level and not letting anyone show their true talents or use their abilities is a wonderful idea.

It's about the equivilent of an old man who only has one eye. Then someone is inclined to give him an eye, then someone else gives THAT man an eye. It goes around and around until everyone is blind.

People are not the same and should never be forced to be the same.

It's not about being the same.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

True Communism (or Marxism) is where's it's at. All other systems require conflict.

Human nature, however, seems to have different ideas.

I'm not responsible for providing money and other things for people I don't know. I don't WISH to provide for these people, and I don't need their help either.

Communism forces everyone to provide for the other. This is not, in a way, fair. It robs me of my freedom to help those whom I wish to help. That is my natural right. In communism it's taken away from me.

That's the greedy human nature I'm talking about.

Of course Marxism doesn't work, I don't want to provide for anyone else either.

But it's hands down the "ideal" system, which is I was originally commenting on. Total cooperation toward the greatest common interests. Can't beat it.

Anarchy seems nice, but where's the ability to produce? Non existant.

It's not greed. Communists are constantly trying to make people feel bad because they want to actually posess things that belong to them. I pay for the things I need, may that be for roads, schools and anything else. If I want to contribute to something else, then I will, but only because I wish to.

I'm not going to pay for people who fuck themselves up or get themselves into a mess. It's not my responsibility. Some people will, some won't. Sometimes I will, sometimes I wont. But I should be able to decide into what I invest my money. That's not greed.

It's a little something called freedom.

Sometimes I will, sometimes I wont. But I should be able to decide into what I invest my money. That's not greed.[/b]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. Which is unfortunate given the topic of the thread.

I would argue and any sort of self-centred view is greed.

True Communism (not the bullshit that they had in Russia and have in China and Cuba) is the total cooperation and comittment of every individual within a society to the common good.

Again though. I completely agree that this type of system could never work.

Exhibit A: You

Your point of view (ie. you don't/wouldn't want to cooperate) is the type of thinking that would lead to the downfall of such a system. However, that doesn't exclude it from being the 'ideal' system.

PS. Sorry if I'm coming off as condescending or smartass-ish. I'm actually enjoying this little debate.

EDIT:

New idea.

I think our disagreement arises from the fact that you're looking out for the individual, while I'm looking out for the society as a whole.

Originally posted by bradybaker
I think our disagreement arises from the fact that you're looking out for the individual, while I'm looking out for the society as a whole.

That is the same thing. What is best for the whole. Is best for the individual
The real disagreement comes from the fact you support the ignorance in society. Meanwhile she has some common sense and understands what freedom is and knows we don't have it. The reason why we have no freedom is because of people like you. Who don't understand what it means. The reason why you think such a system cannot work is because you are not smart enough to understand how it works. What makes you even more redundant at this stage is you do not even understand that greed is possible to overcome. Maybe because you have not overcome it within yourself. Either that or your even more stupid than I thought. It is not something that cannot be overcome. You are just mentally lazy in your reasoning, and like to use this as an excuse for why humanity will never be anything other than greedy in nature.

Once again, are you going to post any evidence to support such bold statements? Or just call me stupid again?

For someone who claims that he doesn't care what people think, you sure are eager to make your opinion known.

Sorry, I'm responding to different people, but I don't know how to use the name quote thingy, so you will have to discern who's quote is who's.

Asher

a few thousand years ago different societies sacrificed their children to gods. they ate the flesh of their enemies. some treated women like cattle (to a much greater extent than today). *
do you think the entire society woke up one day and suddenly realized these things didn't truly benefit anyone? of course not. certain individuals started to say "i don't give a fuck what other people are doing, i will refuse to support such things personally, and they can do what the will to me." *
[/b]

More, like, white people came, destroyed their cultures, and killed their peoples, and then forced them, by means of harsh punishments and cruelty, into following their, "enlightened" and "civilized" religion.

i have known many violent people. every single one has some form of abuse or neglect in their background. if you confront them with compassion they usually back down. *
[/b]

awesome, Gandhi is brilliant.

Chainsaw Kitten

Communism.. pfft. *

Yes bringing everyone to the same level and not letting anyone show their true talents or use their abilities is a wonderful idea. *

It's about the equivilent of an old man who only has one eye. Then someone is inclined to give him an eye, then someone else gives THAT man an eye. It goes around and around until everyone is blind. *

People are not the same and should never be forced to be the same. [/b]

I don't think everyone has to be the same, for everyone to have an equally enjoyable life. I think that the best system would be one in which, Each person would be provided equal resources, and given the opportunity to reach their fullest potential. There would be a salary cap, at 25 million, and all the rest of the money would be used to increase world living standards. All monetary transactions would be completely visible to everyone. And a 10 percent donation would be encouraged, and it would be visible to everyone how much you had donated. I think everyone can still exhibit uniquenes and fullfillment within the communistic society. I agree, I don't think it is about everyone being the same.

Chainsaw Kitten

I'm not responsible for providing money and other things for people I don't know. I don't WISH to provide for these people, and I don't need their help either. *


Communism forces everyone to provide for the other. This is not, in a way, fair. It robs me of my freedom to help those whom I wish to help. That is my natural right. In communism it's taken away from me. [/b]

I believe, that by giving to others, and by exhibiting kindness and generosity (monetary, for instance) that these positive actions will come back to you, reaping what you sow. If you are stating here, that you would like the free will, to give, because you enjoy giving freely, than I don't think communism gives you much of a problem. Otherwise, what freedom are you loosing? The freedom to give freely? I understand if you don't believe in my principle, I am just giving you another perspective.

total cooperation and comittment of every individual within a society to the common good. *
[/b]

that makes perfect sense to me. Although there must be some debate over what is truly the greatest good.

Incesticide

The real disagreement comes from the fact you support the ignorance in society. Meanwhile she has some common sense and understands what freedom is and knows we don't have it. The reason why we have no freedom is because of people like you. Who don't understand what it means. The reason why you think such a system cannot work is because you are not smart enough to understand how it works. What makes you even more redundant at this stage is you do not even understand that greed is possible to overcome. Maybe because you have not overcome it within yourself. Either that or your even more stupid than I thought. It is not something that cannot be overcome. You are just mentally lazy in your reasoning, and like to use this as an excuse for why humanity will never be anything other than greedy in nature.[/b]

First of all, I think that the state humanity is in right now, we are not capable of providing true freedom to ourselves. But the system of government (in developed countries) allows people to actualize their potentials, even though it doesn't always happen. We can't just get rid of rules. Everyone wants so much freedom, but without order, what freedom is there. "Order is the mother of Freedom." When we are given freedom, chaos results, because we are currently not capable of cooperation with our fellow humans.

I'm not saying that it is not possible, it is, but on a pratical level, it cannot happen, at least not in our lifetimes, unless a miracle takes place. We just aren't capable of it. So although anarchy might be ideal, the Governemnt we have now is important to our freedom, because it brings order into what would be chaos, and gives the structure that gives us the security, the resources, and ability to become free. Before, government, and structured societies, no one could actualize any potential or have an happiness or security, because they were always trying to find food and water.

Now with the society that we live in now, anarchy might be possible, because we have all the necessary resources. But without government, people will never be organized enough to actualize potential. Without law enforcement, do you think you would enjoy a pleasant, and secure life, feeling safe, with the people in society today?

You say that, ideally it would work if everyone were "enligtened," and I agree, and I agree that I should act according to ideals, of not hurting others, and being kind, but I don't think this will work on a large scale. It's possible within the realms of esoteric thought, but not pratical thought.

But on an esoteric note, I belive that if you truly desire freedom, than nothing external can stop you. Freedom is an internal feeling, you desire freedom, because you seek happiness(if not then what is the point?), but happiness can be achieved even whilst the government controls your lives. It's In your attitude. If you are internally free than nothing can affect you.

A salary CAP? Are you stating that people should not be allowed to have a certain ammount of money? Ridiculous, people can keep what they earn. Taxes should be taken for only the resources YOU as an individual use. My possessions, including money, are mine. They are mine to give away freely. Nobody tells me what to give to others and what to keep. That's my decision.

Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
Are you stating that people should not be allowed to have a certain ammount of money? Ridiculous, people can keep what they earn. Taxes should be taken for only the resources YOU as an individual use. My possessions, including money, are mine. They are mine to give away freely. Nobody tells me what to give to others and what to keep. That's my decision.

I agree that the salary cap is a bad idea.

The perfect system motivates everyone to give freely toward the common good. No restrictions or limitations are required.

A high salary cap, at 25-75 million, would allow for certainly outrageous luxury.

Any money above this sum, would be donated by its owner.

But the owner would be allowed to designate exactly what humanitarian use, his money went into.

I'm talking about a practical system. I don't think that rich people are just going to give up their money because we encourage it. In this system, incredibly rich people would be allowed to have great luxury, but all of the many people that surpass this sum would have to direct their money into a cause of their choice.

Unless it is your desire to give freely, or to still give even when the government does not force you, I think that it is that kind of thinking which keeps society from functioning at a "more pleasant and happier for all peoples" level. If was making above the salary cap, I would give my money away, because I believe that spreading good in the world, is a more desirable outcome, in the long run for me. People rob, steal and murder because they do not have enough... Enough love, enough money, enough resources, I think it should be our goal to provide everyone with more than "enough," because we certainly have the resources to do so.