Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 62 of 62

Thread: The internet was a mistake

  1. #41
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    3,748
    Mentioned
    513 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Avebury, I like a society which has equal opportunities for every individual to express their innate talents.

    Imagine a society in which you can’t give your offspring any inheritance or access to private schools.

    In such a merit-based society, most people would focus on improving the institutions for everyone, not just for their own benefit.

  2. #42
    Avebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LIE/ENTj
    Posts
    694
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Adam Strange, I agree with you, partly, I also like the a society where people have equal opportunities and can express their innate talents, however I think forbidding access to private schools and saying people can't transmit their inheritance is wrong.

    I think saying that public education needs to have a monopoly risks lowering the quality of education, and that if people wanna opt out of the factories that are public schools and be educated elsewhere, elsehow, stopping them would be monstrous.

    Also, giving your children your money is a right but it changes little when you realize success correlates highly with IQ and that IQ is transmitted along genetic lines...if you want an example of this, consider how decades of communism in China was not able to stop the descendants of Chinese aristorcacy from becoming powerful even today. Also, someone who inherits a fortune but squanders it is not gonna stay rich for long anyways. So people who inherit also need to make the best of their situation. But that's not really the point, the point is, people have a right to do what they want with their money imo...so if they wanna disinherit their kids and give it to charity...that's their right...if they wanna give it all to their children that is also their right. It's their money.
    Last edited by Avebury; 08-19-2018 at 02:47 PM.

  3. #43
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah the idea that success is pareto based sort of obsoletes some of these other debates, it means nature is aristocratic regardless of what government policy says

  4. #44
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    Some people think fairness is everyone having the same piece of the pie, for others, it is keeping what you earn, even if it means some people have a bigger piece of the pie.

    While I think this can in part be explained by emotional biases (see Haidt's theory of moral sentiments), I think these differences in perspective actually stem from a different vision of humanity.

    From the Marxian standpoint, it doesn't make sense that some people earn more than others, since Marx's view of humanity was that we are all part of historical forces anyways, and historical forces depend on material ones to him. And it is true that if you look at humanity from a purely materialistic pov, we're all basically equal in our capacity to push buttons and pull levers (unless you have a physical handicap of some sort).

    From the Objectivist standpoint, we're not all equal since to Ayn Rand, what to creates wealth was not historical forces but the mind, and few people would argue we are all equal in terms of our mind's capacity: most people don't have the mind of Steve Jobs or Elon Musk.

    So considering humans from a different viewpoint will change one's view of what outcomes are fair or unfair. I find that Christians (since you mention God) believe different things, protestants have the view that hardwork is good and thus capitalism rewards hard work (see Max Weber) whereas catholics see money as evil, catholic countries like France and Italy have a harder time accepting capitalism than anglo-saxon countries, at least accepting it on a moral level.

    It will depend on your basic philosophy, what you consider fundamental in believing what makes humanity what it is that will infleunce what you consider to be fair or not fair. It's possibly even more fundamental than emotional prejudice, and yet, who would deny people choose their philosophical outlook based on its implications? So maybe Haidt's theory is correct after all...I don't know, maybe it's a chicken and egg thing (did our philosophy come first, or our emotional biases)? Yeah, I think our emotional bias comes first...I'll stop here.
    It's more likely that it's the "philosophy" or "relativism" that muddles the issue, while fairness or equality is more or less objective. I don't think anyone will object that 50:50 or everyone having the same share of the pie, is what is considered to be "fair".

    Almost everyone will intuitively understand that 50:50 is what is fair, or everyone will know how to cut the pie in a perfectly symmetrical way. Almost everyone will understand how to share the food so that everyone gets an equal share.

    However, you can perhaps say that since I'm the boss, I should get the bigger piece or the pie, or since I've worked so hard, I should be getting more money. Those are the "philosophies".

    However, it hasn't always been that way. In "primitive" societies where money hasn't been introduced, everyone gets the same amount of food in a perfectly orderly and equal way. It doesn't matter if you're the one that hunted, you still get the same amount of food as everyone else. It was the introduction of money that abstracted us away from these initial human ties and obligations. And hence, while money has made us progress a lot faster, it has also created an unequal society. So the question becomes: how to correct the error of inequality?

    In the "ultimatum game" experiment where they anonymously split $100 with a complete stranger, the average split is around 6:4 all over the world.

  5. #45
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    that seems like a false notion of history, since I'm sure the guy who killed the moose or whatever got to eat as much as he wanted before handing it off to whoever. if nothing else people have different caloric requirements and you don't want to mess with that lest you ruin a hunters capacity to hunt

  6. #46
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    that seems like a false notion of history, since I'm sure the guy who killed the moose or whatever got to eat as much as he wanted before handing it off to whoever. if nothing else people have different caloric requirements and you don't want to mess with that lest you ruin a hunters capacity to hunt
    It's an anthropological fact that every single societies before the introduction of money was a completely equal society. They have also studied the tribes that are still active today that haven't been introduced to money yet.

    I don't think this was an accident, because humans were actually quite weak compared to other animals, and were not very good hunters. Our survival depended on cooperation. In fact, the Neanderthals were much stronger than us, had around the same sized brain if not bigger, and were better hunters than us. And yet we were the ones the survived while they got extinct. Why?

    Well it's quite simple, because we used our weaknesses as a strength to invent tools, such as the spear-thrower called the ahtlatl that revolutionized hunting, which allowed us long-distance hunting. It's also likely that we developed more complex speech and language skills to become more cooperative. It's likely that our language skills and inventive skills worked and evolved in tandem.

    Ahtlatl:



    So again, every tools that we invent is a double-edged sword, because we eventually started using the spear-thrower against each other, which created war. It's not hard to imagine that these spear-throwers eventually evolved into bows, catapults, rifles, guns, machine guns, bombs... And so we started asking ourselves, "How can we create peace between the tribes, so that we don't start a war?". Well it seems like they've already had a solution: They had a festival with their rival tribe, they invited their rival tribe for a feast, they shared the most valuable and expensive meat and perhaps they drunk beer with each other. There appears to be an archaeological evidence that they grew and used wheat for this purpose. They suspect that perhaps they used wheat to brew beer (wheat was actually very difficult to grow, so they wondered why they were so persistent in growing wheat). And that's why wheat became the "currency" in the West, while rice became the currency in the East.

  7. #47
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's an anthropological fact that every single societies before the introduction of money was a completely equal society.
    just no, bro

  8. #48
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Embarrassing...:

    Early men and women were equal, say scientists: Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture

    Mark Dyble, an anthropologist who led the study at University College London, said: “There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. We’d argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged.”

    Dyble says the latest findings suggest that equality between the sexes may have been a survival advantage and played an important role in shaping human society and evolution. “Sexual equality is one of a important suite of changes to social organisation, including things like pair-bonding, our big, social brains, and language, that distinguishes humans,” he said. “It’s an important one that hasn’t really been highlighted before.”
    It's no accident that we lost our canine teeth, which could inflict serious damage on others. "Smiling" is often seen as a threatening behavior for most animals by showing their canine teeth, while for us, it's to show friendliness, as if to say "I have nothing that can harm you". Our eyes even evolved to have white sclera, so that perhaps we could easily follow another's gaze and communicate with our eyes, which is called the cooperative eye hypothesis:


    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15625720/n...yes-stand-out/

    Sexual dimorphism is also pretty low among humans, which suggest that no gender physically dominate over the other. At least, not initially.

  9. #49
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    well that's ridiculous on its face because they define inequality in terms of resources that only emerged as a consequence of agriculture. its like yeah, before anyone had anything everyone was equal in terms of what we would consider a cognizable metric by today's standards. but it doesn't mean society was somehow equal, it just meant there was nothing to measure inequality in. its just an extrapolation of the model backwards, just like when we say eventually everyone will cease to exist because the model runs out with the heat death of the universe. this is the fundamental problem of not admitting as existing anything outside the accepted model. its a form of superstition in rational signs, in this case money, but takes it in a weird direction. how can we live forever with no heat! how could there be inequality prior to any form of wealth! its like they don't understand they're just being lead around by their nose and never touching reality. eventually the model will change and then itll be like reality shifted for these people, which is humorous because until that very moment they'd deny the very possibility. its like just another form of believing in dogma against all reason, except because the signs are secular its considered to be different this time. same old hyper rationalization of the unreal in order to wall out the unknown. but it makes a fool out of people, because it lacks self awareness (not to mention outer awareness), doesn't realize how silly and genuinely obtuse it all is right on its face, all because the words sound different this time around. people have been working out this sort of dogma since forever, we didn't need science to tell us that inequality as a social phenomenon began with society, and then to draw the grotesquely obvious conclusion that prior to society there was no inequality, as if this is what the enlightenment had in mind when it self applied the label. good God

    tell me, how can something come from nothing..? in this case inequality. its true, there was no inequality before there were minds to cognize it. maybe humanity was a mistake. eventually if we push back inequality to the emergence of culture itself at what point does it simply become an absolutely empty assertion to talk about inequality as anything but a baseline feature of human existence, because you would have to strip everything that differentiates humans from animals to arrive back at an equal state. I agree that when we all rejoin the primordial womb there will be no inequality. people variably call this death, or heaven, or even hell. but you have simply not thought your premise through if you slice things up and don't go all the way with it. to equate consciousness of inequality with inequality itself is to define inequality as not existing prior to its rational formulation in a model, when its literally the precondition to all models. it says if we just eliminated consciousness of inequality that would take us back to an equal state, because prior to our consciousness of inequality we were equal. its literally a garden of eden myth dressed up in anthropological jargon and scientismic hubris. it tells us nothing we haven't already known for at least a few thousand years. its like you're trying to move things forward and you're several millennia behind in moral development. welcome to the conversation! I imagine you'll be a real joy when you discover the merits of capitalism, and then, oh boy, communism
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-20-2018 at 08:53 AM.

  10. #50
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stop writing incomprehensible gibberish.

    Like I said, humans depended on cooperation for survival. If you couldn't catch food for some reason, then there were others who would help you out, and you'd do the same in return. There is growing neurological evidence for such mechanisms which would reward equality and punish inequality.

    Again, it's a simple anthropological fact that hunter-gatherer societies before the introduction of money were completely egalitarian. This meant that there were:


    1. Social equality. Hunter-gatherers did not have hierarchical social structures. Their decision making was consensual. There was not one ‘Alpha’ to rule them all—”I’m your leader, follow me!” Rather, there were experienced men who took the initiative whenever they had the skills and knowledge relevant to a certain task—”I know where that bear is hiding and how to hunt it down, follow me!”
    2. Economic equality. Hunter-gatherers distributed resources (meat, nuts, fruits, honey, weapons, etc.) pretty much equally.1 And since they could not possess many things anyway as they were constantly on the move, material inequality was hardly viable.
    3. Moral equality. Beyond their virtue-based honor system, our prehistoric forebears had egalitarian values like autonomy, permissive childrearing, and nonviolence (although disputes over women could escalate): men were not bossed around by one entitled chief; they let their children learn through play instead of order; and they could not violently oppress any subgroup in a group where every member was constantly armed and around them.

    https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/hu...erers-equality

    The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...alitarian-ways

    Which is funny, since Socionists would describe such behavior as "Delta", which allegedly came much later in human history. But it's more likely that our egalitarian ways were more or less inborn, and appeared very early in human history. So Socionists have got things backwards: There was egalitarianism first, and then appeared money, then capitalism. But it does not mean that our egalitarianism has completely banished, and that's why there are "SJW" and "The 99%" movements.

    Of course, it's not as if the "Delta" people are responsible for those "egalitarianism". They are in all of us, more or less.

  11. #51
    Avebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LIE/ENTj
    Posts
    694
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It's more likely that it's the "philosophy" or "relativism" that muddles the issue, while fairness or equality is more or less objective.
    Philosophy does not equal relativism.

    I don't think anyone will object that 50:50 or everyone having the same share of the pie, is what is considered to be "fair".

    Almost everyone will intuitively understand that 50:50 is what is fair, or everyone will know how to cut the pie in a perfectly symmetrical way. Almost everyone will understand how to share the food so that everyone gets an equal share.
    Because your example has no context, it is moot. Of course people understand 50/50 is fair when noone had to work or produce or create or use their mind to acheive either piece of the pie. You're assuming it's given as a gift.


    However, it hasn't always been that way. In "primitive" societies where money hasn't been introduced, everyone gets the same amount of food in a perfectly orderly and equal way. It doesn't matter if you're the one that hunted, you still get the same amount of food as everyone else. It was the introduction of money that abstracted us away from these initial human ties and obligations. And hence, while money has made us progress a lot faster, it has also created an unequal society. So the question becomes: how to correct the error of inequality?
    Who's to say inequality is an error? You're saying it is intrinsically an error, because you say so.


    In the "ultimatum game" experiment where they anonymously split $100 with a complete stranger, the average split is around 6:4 all over the world.
    The reason they split it that way has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with fearing the other will refuse to let them take their "piece of the pie".


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I'm not btw, saying that inequality, at least extreme inequality, is not problematic. It creates resentment and bitterness in society, at least in highly urbanized socities like ours where urbanization allows us to see how our neighbours live. But this is not an argument for inequality being bad in a moral sense, simply that it creates social discord which can then be seen as a negative consequence (consequentialism).

    I'm simply saying that your whole argument rests on the notion that equality is good for its own sake, which is an empty assumption, and that the examples you give are experiments in laboratories which don't prove anything about a human being's relation money and resources in real life scenarios. I think it's weird how people who dismiss philosophy and resort to science to solve the problems of philosophy are the first to be influenced by second hand philosophical notions, especially when it comes to ethics/morals.
    Last edited by Avebury; 08-20-2018 at 07:25 PM. Reason: typo

  12. #52
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    lets see what other social ills didn't exist in the distant past


    environmental pollution didn't exist before the earth cooled
    is hunter gatherer society the aspirational model of a cancer free society, since no one lived long enough to get it?
    there was no such thing as a crime, because unless you believe in natural law there were no laws because there was no writing

    etc



    it wasn't so much that hunter-gatherer society knew perfect equality, it was they had no notion of equality at all. the idea that they all shared with one another seems silly considering how many strains of proto humans got out competed into literal extinction. oh but you say, there just wasn't enough to go around, but there is today. so at the exact moment man learned how to provide for himself he also became greedy, ok, well it works both ways, if you go back you can have "perfect" equality, but not enough to go around. it does literally zero work, because it does not solve any problem. it actually does the opposite, which is to say, society became "unequal" but the species thrived, making inequality out to be progressive, because more people live today than then. its literally the rising tide argument in reverse, but unironically. your solution is literally the thanos-infinitity-war approach to inequality. if we just dont count anyone who dies we can kill off anyone who dies from limited resources and then "share" the rest freely and we have our notion of true equality. its like if extinction is back on the table we can solve all sorts of problems that way


    your entire "theory" begs the question on the flimsiest philosophical grounds and then turns around and presents itself as somehow being past "philosophical" questions. of course if you define inequality out of existence you won't find it in your example that does precisely that. but the entire thing rests on this idea that early humans knew how to share, and lived on equal terms with one another. that only holds true to the exact extent no one would want to live in such a state, i.e.: there being nothing to share to begin with. its like saying in space there are no wars over oxygen, as if that tells us anything about peace. peace, like equality, only matters after you have something worth fighting over. all those cavemen who starved because people wouldn't share apparently don't count because you defined their deaths as not being a consequence of inequality to begin with, when they're the ultimate example of inequality at work. its interesting because its a %100 philosophical argument, because it relies totally on concepts and word play, and yet calls itself anthropological as if adding a sketch of an early human transforms what amounts to a 3rd grade philosophical argument into something "scientific". its like so incredibly stupid your brain seems to have confused it with something sophisticated. its stoner philosophy dressed up as science

    "but duude, what if we lived like cavemen, yeah that's the answer, you can't have inequality if you don't have stuff!"

    its like bro, nothing is stopping you, go do it. the second you really decide to become a hunter gatherer you also achieve nirvana which is seeing why some inequality is actually better than the pure equality of the past, so you can't just go back for the answer to inequality, because you're only making things worse all the while deluding yourself with a juvenile faith in words that you have achieved progress. the problem is you won't ever do actually do this, and therefore understand this, because your values are just as flimsy as your "anthropology"... can we live in a better society? yes. do cavemen serve as a example of how to get there? yes! but only in the sense of appreciating the path to getting to equality is not to regress into a society where nothing is worth competing over, its in developing genuine human compassion. this idea that cavemen had this, and therefore it is a primordial quality of man, because they knew how to share is idiotic because we don't know that cavemen knew how to share, we've only derived that conclusion on the basis of there being nothing to not-share over. and somehow assumed if there were, they would have shared, when as soon as that hypothesis became testable man proved otherwise. you make a divide at this precise moment and say it caused greed, when greed was always there it just hadn't manifested yet because by definition there was not yet an opportunity to do so. you also assume no one ever slapped away another person only so they could get more at the dinner table, as if we don't see this behavior in dogs and every other mammal at a pre-scarcity stage of social development, not to mention babies, and so forth. its the most obtuse argument of all time, because it says if you never give a person an occasion to sin that makes them perfect. its a garden of eden scenario. and then literally cures the disease by killing the patient by sending them back to the garden to solve any problems. its like I could lobotomize you right now and you'd never be criminally responsible for anything ever again. is this the cure for all crime? have we cracked the code?

    if at the earliest available opportunity man manifested greed, is it fair to say the opportunity caused greed or that man was always chomping at the bit? therefore to suggest that caveman society is illustrative of a better social order is %100 illusory, because those same cavemen would be shitheads today, probably worse actually, and therefore adopting their lifestyle in order to achieve equality is really just another form of sending people to a gulag. it basically says if we take everything of value from everyone they will be forced to behave, when its like, sure--you give up all your shit first. you've literally discovered Christianity (2000 years late and with an extra chromosome) but it still only means something if people do it willingly
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-20-2018 at 03:08 PM.

  13. #53
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,612
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    neanderthal didn't really extinct, they interbred with homo sapiens, same for all the other minor unknown populations.

  14. #54
    heretic artificial hyena Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C/H 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,162
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Communication was a mistake?

    Those PoLRs knew it all along..
    extrospection > introspection

    Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.


  15. #55
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,612
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's all about language innit

  16. #56
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,612
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol @ "oh there weren't computers 10,000 years ago! then what did humans know about equality!? u dumbos, civility was created in 1492. those natives sure had no idea what fairness is".


  17. #57
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,612
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    brief reminder that humanity has a 500,000 years old history of which we know less than a tiny 0,5 %....

  18. #58
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are missing the point.

    The hunter-gatherer society was simply what was evolutionarily advantageous, and it's what "worked" and survived over time. Humans were weak, they were not good hunters, so they were forced to cooperate, and from cooperation, the notion of fairness and equality were inevitable. So instead of evolving stronger claws or jaws, or bigger muscles, we evolved toward even greater mutual cooperation. In fact, weaker jaws were a requirement for bigger brains, since the less muscle required for the jaw would mean bigger the cranium (it's not possible to have big brains while having strong jaw muscles). We are not "man for himself", individually, we are incredibly weak. It's doubtful that any one man can survive in the wild all by himself.

    Those are what made us human. The society that we have now would not be possible without our ability to cooperate on a grand scale. We are the only species on this planet that can have such deep and integrated levels of cooperation.

    And so is money. It would not have been possible to have this society without money, since money is what made us progress at such a phenomenal speed, and money is what allowed us to excel (over the others). It's also not possible to integrate at such an abstract level, where you can trade with people that you don't personally know. But of course, money is not without problems, because it would inevitably create inequality, the wealth disparity and the class divide. And so we look for solutions to the problems that money would eventually bring. And you know, they already had solutions: The Sumerians in the 3000 BC called it the Amagi (which literally means "returning to mother" - in this context people who couldn't pay their debt were sold as slaves and they were separated from their mothers, and so the amagi returned the child to the mother, and the mother to the child), they periodically wiped out the debt of those who couldn't pay. No doubt that we'd be looking for more of such solutions as the wealth disparity and inequality increases in our modern society. Or perhaps we'd be looking back to such solutions as the amagi.

    And it's not surprising that things like the welfare system is like the give-and-take system of the hunter-gatherer society. If you didn't have any resources today, then there was someone else who would help you out, and you'd do the same in return.

    And so to get back to the topic, the Internet is a doubled-edged sword just like money or hunting weapons. In fact, every single tools that we create is a potential double-edged sword. It can benefit us and it can also harm us. So we would need to be looking for their solutions.

  19. #59
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,537
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    why even bother posting at all if that is your point? what have you added to the discussion if everything is nothing but an illusory shifting of the set point in what amounts to nothing more than perfectly balanced tradeoffs? implicit in making the effort is the idea that that tradeoff is worth it somehow, and yet you go on to deny the possibility of progress via movement of tradeoffs in a certain direction. don't you see how juvenile and empty that makes everything you say and do. life is a performative contradiction, ok got it, that is the essence of freedom and ethics, now what will you do about it? to return everything back to non contradiction in the way you have outlined is just a ghoulish touch of death. ironically clothed in some smug sense of superiority. its like get out of here, you mummy, you're not helping you're just gross right now

  20. #60
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well there goes "arguing" with Bertrand. The man is truly insane and incapable of having rational discussions.

  21. #61
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,612
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I liked the historical comparisons, Singu, thanks for sharing. The problem with prehistory is that we miss a lot of details on how people were living their lives, without a written language to testify for them we can only attempt to reconstruct what sort of society these prehistoric men were living in. The traces left behind, in some cases, are very particular, shedding light onto worlds that seem completely alien to us, worlds that nevertheless, we made of flesh and bones and carrying the same genes, have experienced as necessary processes in our timely evolution. The concept of origin gets lost in time, but it takes a shape through all the "others" that made "me". If we're anything, it's always because of these others... It's good to remember what we're made of when we want to progress.

  22. #62
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the most significant thing about this is that, the Socionics' version of human history is completely false.

    The anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary biological version of human history went something like this:

    1) Egalitarianism -> 2) Introduction of currency (wheat/rice > silver & gold coins > printed money) -> 3) Accumulation of wealth/power (kings & queens, emperors, Feudalism, generals & armies) -> (short-lived democracy in Athens) -> 4) Modern dictatorship (WWI&II, Nationalism, Communism) -> 5) Modern democracy

    What Socionics call "Delta" egalitarianism was present very early in human history during the hunter-gatherer society, and certainly a small percentage of "Delta" people weren't somehow responsible for this. Also obviously that it's the accumulation of wealth that creates power, so somehow "Se" alone can't be responsible for creating power by themselves by forcing others (after all, you'd need some sort of GAINS for maintaining power, and that comes in the form of paying and compensating to those who would share the power with you).

    Socionics version of human history tells us that it went something like this:

    1) Vague and nebulous idyllic state of primitive human interactions -> 2) Sudden violent takeover of power by a small minority group. Feudalism, dictatorship -> 3) Money, capitalism, democracy -> 4) Advanced and progressive state of a perfected, egalitarian state

    Which is obviously and undoubtedly, completely false. There's just so much overwhelming evidence against it.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •