Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

promethean75
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

Post by promethean75 »

Not only that, but these extended periods of interacting with strangers in a medium (philosophy forum) where the content of interaction involves impassioned conversations about what are supposed to be 'serious matters' - politics, ethics, religious belief, etc. - we are objectified by others in a way that prevents them from discovering and recognizing nuance and idiosyncrasy in us that would effect their overall impression and opinion about us.

In different words, you had a cup of coffee with someone you had argued with for months or years, and your whole mental image of the person - the kind of character that you would expect to meet after reading their posts... the impression of them that was formed in your mind over the period of interaction... was mistaken.

This would mean that the whole time there was something about them that, if known, would have prevented and/or allowed certain kinds of impressions to exist or not that would have effected the image you had of them.

Say I'm arguing with a religious person that I end up believing is a flake. I have a coffee with this dude and after a period of real, face to face interaction, all kinds of little things that I am mildly intrigued by, show through, and I find that I like the guy, and he's no longer that idiot on the forum. Redeeming features that are endearing to you - and you never know what they are because everyone is unique... some things we'd call vice in most, we might call a virtue in this person, etc.

This would mean that I had this dude wrong the whole time, and my entire disposition toward him was in vain.

It goes both ways tho. You might discover someone you thought was pretty cool, is actually an obnoxious ass.

The point of all this is sociologically existential. An authentic and well informed 'opinion' about someone cannot be made with only the content of what they have written at a forum. It's almost a paradox; where discussions of subjects that are supposed to be purely impersonal and objective, occur with people about whom your impression and opinion would be drastically different had you met them first. If this is true, and it is, the empty formal nature of the objective environment one discusses philosophy in, would leave open imaginary and fantastical possibilities for the kinds of impressions we can form from what we've read, what someone has written. One can get a guy all wrong, here. Terribly wrong.

For example of this mild paradox; I feel like I need to know how one makes his/her money, what he/she does 'for a living', what careers they have had, etc., to be able to form an accurate assessment of what they are... how I am to think of the person in relation to what they have said, what they believe, their general philosophical compass, so to speak.

I might find some feature about them that brings me to suddenly think 'ah, that's why they believe x and y, that's why they're conservative, or that's why they're of this religion, or that's why they call themselves a nihilist.'

Then it suddenly makes sense why they have the position they do. Now while I can certainly maintain my disagreements with them - the ones I discovered on the forum along the way - I can't really say this guy is a flake anymore... I can't say 'what and why he believes what he does, was arbitrarily selected for by some idiot who didn't know what he was doing.'

In the matter of forming opinions, knowing personal details about your interlocutor would seem to be the most important thing... and yet it is called the least important, nay, even the most dangerous thing, to obtaining objective, philosophical knowledge.

I think Nietzsche said it once, tho; in the end, a man's philosophy is only the testimony of his life'.

And how much of the private person and all the unique experiences they have had that have driven them to their philosophical position - one which they can only ever describe with the accuracy of some meager writing at a forum - can never be known during the objective pursuit of knowledge while in their company?

Strange. We should want to know before anything else, with whom am I speaking, not 'what do you think of Nancy Pelosi and Hume's bundle theory of impressions?'

Perhaps this is just a fetish of a gestalt existentialist, but I need something more than text to draw the conclusion 'this person is wrong'. But what do you mean by 'wrong', then? Well I'll tell you what I don't mean. I don't mean a collection of propositions. An AI can do that.
Walker
Posts: 14300
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

Post by Walker »

Busing and flying the great unwashed of the world into communities throughout the US, without permission from or notifying those communities, overburdens local resources.

- The governor of Texas says the state is now going to round-up illegal border crossers and bus them to the Capitol Steps in Washington D.C.
- When asked about logistics, another Texas official said that the state can get 800 buses to move these people. Maybe it was 900 buses. At the rate they're crossing, all those buses will be in constant motion. Anyway, Texas is doing this because Brandon is sprinkling huge numbers of illegal border crossers into small towns and cities throughout Texas, and other parts of the country.
- The Mexican drug cartels now control the unprecedented flow of humanity over the border, which suggests some kind of arrangement with the US federal government. Some reporter should investigate these facts.

- This busing into DC should be interesting.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22295
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

Post by Immanuel Can »

From space, you can see where Socialism leaves a society.

On the good side, the Socialist State is probably much more environmentally friendly... :roll:
Attachments
Koreas2.jpg
Koreas2.jpg (18.17 KiB) Viewed 415 times
Belinda
Posts: 8039
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Example of how Capitalists impose harm upon the poor DIRECTLY...

Post by Belinda »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 5:39 pm Not only that, but these extended periods of interacting with strangers in a medium (philosophy forum) where the content of interaction involves impassioned conversations about what are supposed to be 'serious matters' - politics, ethics, religious belief, etc. - we are objectified by others in a way that prevents them from discovering and recognizing nuance and idiosyncrasy in us that would effect their overall impression and opinion about us.

In different words, you had a cup of coffee with someone you had argued with for months or years, and your whole mental image of the person - the kind of character that you would expect to meet after reading their posts... the impression of them that was formed in your mind over the period of interaction... was mistaken.

This would mean that the whole time there was something about them that, if known, would have prevented and/or allowed certain kinds of impressions to exist or not that would have effected the image you had of them.

Say I'm arguing with a religious person that I end up believing is a flake. I have a coffee with this dude and after a period of real, face to face interaction, all kinds of little things that I am mildly intrigued by, show through, and I find that I like the guy, and he's no longer that idiot on the forum. Redeeming features that are endearing to you - and you never know what they are because everyone is unique... some things we'd call vice in most, we might call a virtue in this person, etc.

This would mean that I had this dude wrong the whole time, and my entire disposition toward him was in vain.

It goes both ways tho. You might discover someone you thought was pretty cool, is actually an obnoxious ass.

The point of all this is sociologically existential. An authentic and well informed 'opinion' about someone cannot be made with only the content of what they have written at a forum. It's almost a paradox; where discussions of subjects that are supposed to be purely impersonal and objective, occur with people about whom your impression and opinion would be drastically different had you met them first. If this is true, and it is, the empty formal nature of the objective environment one discusses philosophy in, would leave open imaginary and fantastical possibilities for the kinds of impressions we can form from what we've read, what someone has written. One can get a guy all wrong, here. Terribly wrong.

For example of this mild paradox; I feel like I need to know how one makes his/her money, what he/she does 'for a living', what careers they have had, etc., to be able to form an accurate assessment of what they are... how I am to think of the person in relation to what they have said, what they believe, their general philosophical compass, so to speak.

I might find some feature about them that brings me to suddenly think 'ah, that's why they believe x and y, that's why they're conservative, or that's why they're of this religion, or that's why they call themselves a nihilist.'

Then it suddenly makes sense why they have the position they do. Now while I can certainly maintain my disagreements with them - the ones I discovered on the forum along the way - I can't really say this guy is a flake anymore... I can't say 'what and why he believes what he does, was arbitrarily selected for by some idiot who didn't know what he was doing.'

In the matter of forming opinions, knowing personal details about your interlocutor would seem to be the most important thing... and yet it is called the least important, nay, even the most dangerous thing, to obtaining objective, philosophical knowledge.

I think Nietzsche said it once, tho; in the end, a man's philosophy is only the testimony of his life'.

And how much of the private person and all the unique experiences they have had that have driven them to their philosophical position - one which they can only ever describe with the accuracy of some meager writing at a forum - can never be known during the objective pursuit of knowledge while in their company?

Strange. We should want to know before anything else, with whom am I speaking, not 'what do you think of Nancy Pelosi and Hume's bundle theory of impressions?'

Perhaps this is just a fetish of a gestalt existentialist, but I need something more than text to draw the conclusion 'this person is wrong'. But what do you mean by 'wrong', then? Well I'll tell you what I don't mean. I don't mean a collection of propositions. An AI can do that.

You and I are Gestalt existentialists by belief and profession of belief. However we, same as Putin and the nice Xian you met and liked, are also Daseins. As Daseins all must decide what to do next. As Daseins all of us must fear changes that will obliterate us.

Without posing that Free Will is a thing, the Dasein can make a leap of faith and a rude sign at Dasein and take the risk of universal love. Putin obviously is not doing so. The Passion of Jesus Christ is the myth that tells of how one man did take the leap of faith.
Post Reply