Originally posted by Mandos
Maybe everything we have now makes us less human.
🙄
and maybe the things that make red are REALLY BLUE!!!!!
what definition of human are you using?
because to me, humanity is defined by culture, art, subjective expression, philosophy, awareness of our condition, curiosity, innovation.
Living back in the forest seems to remove all of the advances we as a species have made on all of these fronts.
Originally posted by Mandos
Amen. Just create an easy way to take power from the leader if incompetent and you have yourself a pretty good ''government''.
thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard
There is no compotent fascist leader
the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.
And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heardThere is no compotent fascist leader
the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.
And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.
Not about truth but about policy. There's no inherent human goodness or intelligence to fall back on. That's been tried all over the world for a long time and caused plenty of suffering. A totalitarian regime doesn't need people to be intelligent or good, it just needs one person who can do that which is far more realistic.
Originally posted by inimalist
🙄and maybe the things that make red are BLUE!!!!!
what definition of human are you using?
because to me, humanity is defined by culture, art, subjective expression, philosophy, awareness of our condition, curiosity, innovation.
Living back in the forest seems to remove all of the advances we as a species have made on all of these fronts.
Purely subjective.
In the Bible, humanity God wishes us to have is not defined as any of those.
Maybe we don't need all these advanced technologies. It simplifies our life now, but I wonder how much time we have left before we taste the salty side of it.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heardThere is no compotent fascist leader
the sufering imposed by having someone able to make absolute descisions about truth based on a whim are not only detrimental to a society but also to individuals in their everyday life.
And one cannot have any free inquirey, be it journalistic, philosophical, scientific or even theological in a society where truth is imposed top- down, as all free inquirey is the antithesis to power.
Good statements, foolish tone. And yet even the statements fail to their usage. Come back when you are less narrow-minded. You are a scientist? So am I.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not about truth but about policy. There's no inherent human goodness or intelligence to fall back on. That's been tried all over the world for a long time and caused plenty of suffering. A totalitarian regime doesn't need people to be intelligent or good, it just needs one person who can do that which is far more realistic.
indeed, I was not proposing an alternative, simply iterating a point about truth in a totalitarian society.
Likely, there is no Utopian system. However, an absolute centralized authority is clearly an idea that longs for the waste bin.
A solution for the modern world? Why not radical federalism?
or technocracy 😛
Originally posted by Mandos
Purely subjective.In the Bible, humanity God wishes us to have is not defined as any of those.
Maybe we don't need all these advanced technologies. It simplifies our life now, but I wonder how much time we have left before we taste the salty side of it.
what qualities are those of humanity in the bible and how would living in a forest bring them out more?
Originally posted by Mandos
Good statements, foolish tone. And yet even the statements fail to their usage. Come back when you are less narrow-minded. You are a scientist? So am I.
awwww, dismissiveness from a fascist
aside from empty rhetoric, why don't you use your big sciency brain to tell me which of my points fall short and for what reason?
For instance, what authoritarian society engages in free inquirey? Or that maybe people don't suffer from lack of liberty?
Originally posted by inimalist
what qualities are those of humanity in the bible and how would living in a forest bring them out more?awwww, dismissiveness from a fascist
aside from empty rhetoric, why don't you use your big sciency brain to tell me which of my points fall short and for what reason?
For instance, what authoritarian society engages in free inquirey? Or that maybe people don't suffer from lack of liberty?
I don't know, maybe Jesus was secretly a scientist! Knowledge is nothing if you don't have the right attitude that goes with it. And Jesus wasn't lucky to have lived in a forest, there was damned deserts all arround him. But you get my point 😛.
😕 And I'm not a fascist.
Your points don't fall short, your state of mind does. You said very interesting things, but it's only perspectives. As are my thoughts about free inquirey or lack of liberty.
Originally posted by inimalist
Likely, there is no Utopian system.
Absolutely. As long as people are people utopianism (which has a great etymology by the way) is impossible. No one is going to be happy all of the time, at best you can hope to keep most of the people content most of the time. There's a quote from Transmetroplitan that goes something to the effect "if I wake up and 51% of this country is breathing and has a TV, I'm doing my job".
Originally posted by inimalist
However, an absolute centralized authority is clearly an idea that longs for the waste bin.
I disagree. It's the only system in which it is possible for a person to be objective. An absolute leader has no constituency to appease and stands to gain nothing.
Originally posted by inimalist
Why not radical federalism?
In-fighting.
Originally posted by inimalist
or technocracy 😛
The Evitable Conflict.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. As long as people are people utopianism (which has a great etymology by the way) is impossible. No one is going to be happy all of the time, at best you can hope to keep most of the people content most of the time. There's a quote from Transmetroplitan that goes something to the effect "if I wake up and 51% of this country is breathing and has a TV, I'm doing my job".
not that I don't agree, but isn't 51% a fairly low bar to be striving for?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. It's the only system in which it is possible for a person to be objective. An absolute leader has no constituency to appease and stands to gain nothing.
unfortunatly, they also have everything to lose. It is essential that they maintain power, not just personally, but for the integrety of the political system. For this reason, truth has to be subordinate to the will of the leader, and infalibility is a necessity. People cannot believe they can know better than the leader, else the leader loses the ability to control the people.
I would also deny the capability of a person to be objective.
But I do concede, on paper benevolent totalitarianism works.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In-fighting.
agreed, though I'd think tolorable, especially if a gradual redistribution of power went along with bottom up mechanisms of local conflict resolution
but ya, the no utopia sentiment is true here as well.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Evitable Conflict.
I hope not....
I don't want smart robots, just ones that do all the manual labour and run the economy so people don't have to.... and that sounds so stupid simplified like that.
Originally posted by inimalist
not that I don't agree, but isn't 51% a fairly low bar to be striving for?
He was making a point that no matter what he did as President someone would get screwed over but that when it came right down to it as long as any majority was happy he hadn't failed.
Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunatly, they also have everything to lose. It is essential that they maintain power, not just personally, but for the integrety of the political system. For this reason, truth has to be subordinate to the will of the leader, and infalibility is a necessity. People cannot believe they can know better than the leader, else the leader loses the ability to control the people.
I'll admit those are problems though I don't think totalitarianism has to suppress truth or opinions. In fact opinions, at least, benefit a totalitarian state as long as only one person can enforce them.
Originally posted by inimalist
I would also deny the capability of a person to be objective.
I think it would be more possible to get a single benevolent/objective person than hope for benevolent/objective majority or group.
Originally posted by inimalist
But I do concede, on paper benevolent totalitarianism works.
Well, everything works on paper.
agreed, though I'd think tolorable, especially if a gradual redistribution of power went along with bottom up mechanisms of local conflict resolution
but ya, the no utopia sentiment is true here as well.
Originally posted by inimalist
I hope not....I don't want smart robots, just ones that do all the manual labour and run the economy so people don't have to.... and that sounds so stupid simplified like that.
😂
Ok, the Pope is quite involved with Italian Politics (and that of other countries too I suppose). Here is a recent example of what he has said on a social issue.
SILVIO Berlusconi's Government has engaged in a vigorous damage-limitation exercise after Pope Benedict appeared to lend his moral authority to concern that Italy was in danger of returning to fascism under the tycoon's hardline right-wing leadership.In his Sunday address, the pontiff expressed concern at "recent examples of racism" and reminded Catholics it was their duty to steer others in society away from "racism, intolerance and exclusion (of others)".
The Pope's remarks came amid a furious dispute over an editorial published by Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana that condemned recent government moves against immigrants and Roma. It said it was to be hoped fascism was not "resurfacing in our country under another guise".
The Pope's remarks were seen as a signal the Vatican was not distancing itself from Famiglia Cristiana's stance. The Pope said: "One of humanity's great conquests is the overcoming of racism. Unfortunately, there are new … examples of this in various countries."
There is no way the Pope made those comments without knowing that they would reflect upon the Italian Government- so was he right or wrong to make them?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ok, the Pope is quite involved with Italian Politics (and that of other countries too I suppose). Here is a recent example of what he has said on a social issue.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/19/race.catholicism
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804204.htmThere is no way the Pope made those comments without knowing that they would reflect upon the Italian Government- so was he right or wrong to make them?
There's French philosopher that wrote an interesting book. He states that the whole concept of Western democracy as we know it, the separation of state and church, tolerance to people with other beliefs and cultures, are in fact derived from the christian new testament philosophy and propagates that all school shoudl teach christian philosophy as a compulsary class in school (not to be confused with religion as a class).
I thought that was an interesting view since a lot of people on these boards view christian beliefs as dictatorial and should stay very far away from politics. Interestingly enough, this French philosopher Frédéric Lenoir in his book Le Christ philosophe, says that without an ethical backing democracy would be empty. Pure democratically two-thirds majority could for instance take away women's rights to vote. From a christian ethical pov that would be wrong. Ineterstingly enough all the western democratical values we hold high, general rights to vote for men and women, separation of church and state, were all devised during a christian dominated society and fit well in christian philosophy. All forms of state that ruled with dictatorial styles (inculding the ones that CALLED themselves christian) were going against the philosophical principles of christianity.
I thought that was a refreshing, non-christian view on this topic in light of the usual uninformed ranting that goes on in here occassionally.
Now, the rant is heated up again, for sure. 😉