mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Being smart is the new stupid. Options
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 5:23:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
Take a look at this forum. Smart people with their smart words are only duping themselves.

Rothbard wrote:
The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims by his spending giving a boost to retail trade would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the "multiplier effect," it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.


Compare that statement with this simple model of consumerism.

Peter Schiff wrote:

Some people that got stranded on an island, and I think it was 6 or 7 were Asians and there was one American and as soon as they were on the island they had to divide up the jobs. And one Asian was given the job of fishing, the other one was hunting, one of them got the job of gathering fire wood. So they all had jobs, and the American was assigned the job of eating. And so at the end of the day, they would all gather around and prepare this feast and the American would sit there and eat it. But he would´nt eat it all, he´d just leave enough crumbs so he could give to the 6 Asians so they could go on and repeat it again tomorrow, spend all day preparing a meal for the American to eat. Now, the way modern economists would look at it, they would say “Well, this American is vital to the whole island economy. Without him nobody would have to fish, nobody would have to hunt, nobody would have to gather fire wood. He is creating all this employment on the island”. But the reality is, every Asian on that island, his lot in life would be dramatically improved if they kicked the American off the island because now they would have a lot more to eat or maybe they wouldn´t have to spend all day hunting and fishing and they can lay on the beach a little bit


The more I look at what is happening around me the more I am convinced that humans today are no smarter than cavemen of prehistory. All our fancy knowledge and we know less than our ancestral hunter gatherers.

Enlightenment? Pfft


Edit:
My first quote was meant to frame the problem. Intellect is giving people the wrong answers. Orwellian in that irrational ideas are being rationalized by obscure thinking, and it's being called enlightenment. Rothbard says this is going to happen again and again in its own different way for each generation.

The second quote was to illustrate how bad ideas can be correctly rejected by a simple mind yet rationalized, supported, and actually praised by intellectuals.
Kat
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 5:43:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/19/2009
Posts: 878
Neurons: 3,389
doubutsuMother wrote
Being smart is the new stupid.


I don't believe being smart is the new stupid.
I believe the news of the stupid is just in your face
a lot quicker than it used to be because even stupid people
have access to technology. It is designed for the masses
...hence the onslaught of books, "Anything for Dummies".
Memo to you doubutsuMother...There are more dopes then there
are scholars and there always will be.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 5:46:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
I'm trying to say the scholars themselves are dummheits. I respect the bushman more.

( I know that German word is not correct. I just like the way it sounds)
Kat
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 5:49:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/19/2009
Posts: 878
Neurons: 3,389

As one of the non-scholars, I have to say...
I'm pickin up what you're puttin down!
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:09:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
Take a look at this forum. Smart people with their smart words are only duping themselves.

Rothbard wrote:
The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims by his spending giving a boost to retail trade would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the "multiplier effect," it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.


Compare that statement with this simple model of consumerism.

Peter Schiff wrote:

Some people that got stranded on an island, and I think it was 6 or 7 were Asians and there was one American and as soon as they were on the island they had to divide up the jobs. And one Asian was given the job of fishing, the other one was hunting, one of them got the job of gathering fire wood. So they all had jobs, and the American was assigned the job of eating. And so at the end of the day, they would all gather around and prepare this feast and the American would sit there and eat it. But he would´nt eat it all, he´d just leave enough crumbs so he could give to the 6 Asians so they could go on and repeat it again tomorrow, spend all day preparing a meal for the American to eat. Now, the way modern economists would look at it, they would say “Well, this American is vital to the whole island economy. Without him nobody would have to fish, nobody would have to hunt, nobody would have to gather fire wood. He is creating all this employment on the island”. But the reality is, every Asian on that island, his lot in life would be dramatically improved if they kicked the American off the island because now they would have a lot more to eat or maybe they wouldn´t have to spend all day hunting and fishing and they can lay on the beach a little bit


The more I look at what is happening around me the more I am convinced that humans today are no more smarter than cavemen of prehistory.

Enlightenment? Pfft


I'm a bit in a fog as to what the point is of this thread. Those people you quoted, what is there to compare? One is the probably largely wrong idea that our society allows a robber to steal if he justifies his crime with a Keynesian explanation of how it stimulates the economy. That is obviously not true, if only because the victim could have spent the money too; but mostly because people aren't generally so naive. The second quote seems to assert that a lebensraum is better than trade. Let's just assume that I'm wrong in thinking that it seems to assert that because this is getting a bit rich.

What, incidentally does this mean: 'All our fancy knowledge and we know less than our ancestral hunter gatherers.'? Do you think we know more or less? Of course, I hope to keep an open mind to any kind of view of society but I'm a little bit perplexed here, what do you mean 'Enlightenment? Pfft'? Without the Enlightenment we'd be living like animals.
FlashBack1968
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:10:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/28/2009
Posts: 158
Neurons: 459
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Chop that wood
Carry water
What's the sound of one hand clapping
Enlightenment, don't know what it is

http://tinysong.com/6uSS
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:27:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
sorry uuaschbaer, you're going to have to figure that out on your own.


You stand as another example and your statements do nothing to shed light on the dilemma. Take your stance that humans no longer live like animals after some arbitrary enlightenment in our history. Do you have any reason or logic behind it because I think it is obviously untrue.

You seem to be tainted by indoctrination like everyone else. Tell me what does the state of nature mean to you?

This topic reminds me of my government run high school history teacher ( an intelligent man) who didn't understand Rousseau. I contend that very few people truly understand what Rousseau meant by the social contract.
Epiphileon
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:35:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
No DM, it was not intelligence that screwed us, from a purely objective stance, it was consciousness. From hand held pieces of flint to axes took millions of years, after consciousness we went from bows and arrows, to thermonuclear weapons in less than a couple thousand. So I wouldn't be pffting enlightenment, it is our only chance now. That is of course if we can attain it in time.
(Just between you, me, the lampost and anyone else who reads this though, the chances are looking dimmer all the time.)
We can always hope there is a Hari Seldon out there somewhere though.
bugdoctor
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:42:06 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2009
Posts: 1,789
Neurons: 5,456
Location: United States - Georgia
Epiphileon wrote:

We can always hope there is a Hari Seldon out there somewhere though.


Or a Jack Bauer.
Angel
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:42:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
sorry uuaschbaer, you're going to have to figure that out on your own.


Why? I presume you have the answer right at your disposal.

Edit: I see that you've updated your post.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:43:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
and why would i waste my time?
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:57:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
sorry uuaschbaer, you're going to have to figure that out on your own.


You stand as another example and your statements do nothing to shed light on the dilemma.

They're questions, learning is wonderful. (Edit: Well, there was one statement to point out what was partly responsible for my ignorance regarding your intentions accompanying this thread.)

Take your stance that humans no longer act like animals after some arbitrary enlightenment in our history. Do you have and reason or logic behind it because I think it is obviously untrue.

I was thinking of modern scientific advancements. Medicine, for example, not morality.

You seem to be tainted by indoctrination like everyone.

Well, I'm sure you can help me.

Tell me what does the state of nature mean to you?

I have never come across the term, therefore it means nothing to me. A bit of wikipediaing reveals that it means anarchy.

This topic reminds of my government run high school history teacher who didn't understand Rousseau. I contend that very few people truly understand Rousseau meant by the social contract.


I read something only today about Rousseau. A reformer of educational theory, leaving things to nature? Russell didn't go in depth, darn the luck. We could've had even more to talk about.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 6:57:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
and why would i waste my time?


Well, you've started this thread, I suppose the thing to do now is to talk about its subject.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:02:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
Epiphileon wrote:
No DM, it was not intelligence that screwed us, from a purely objective stance, it was consciousness. From hand held pieces of flint to axes took millions of years, after consciousness we went from bows and arrows, to thermonuclear weapons in less than a couple thousand. So I wouldn't be pffting enlightenment, it is our only chance now. That is of course if we can attain it in time.
(Just between you, me, the lampost and anyone else who reads this though, the chances are looking dimmer all the time.)
We can always hope there is a Hari Seldon out there somewhere though.


There is little i can argue with in your post. Sounds materialistically Marxist.

What will Epiphileon's enlightenment for the human race be like? What you're looking for might already have been found.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:05:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 595,331
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
If the Asians in your story were clever they'd bound the American's leg with linen before kicking him to sea. Why not use a good bait when there is one?
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:07:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
Quote:
...[state of nature] means anarchy.



BLAMO! we have another winner but again that depends on what you mean by anarchy.


I don't mean to come across rude and for that I apologize. But just switching one word for another isn't going to get us anywhere.

doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:25:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
Quote:
I was thinking of modern scientific advancements. Medicine, for example, not morality.


I still don't see the achievement--maybe the animals have it better. Individually, Are you saying you can put more knowledge to use than your ancestors? In the woods I'd rather be a witchdoctor than a Harvard professor.


Scientifically, we are inventing more ways to utterly destroy ourselves at an accelerated rate. When Moses was ordering his people to kill his enemies and rape their children no one had to worry about the man himself blowing up the whole world.

Don't get me wrong I am not nostalgic and I know each generation thinks the next is going to destroy the world. I'm just stating this all as a static truth--the problems we face are as far from a solution as even.




bugdoctor
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:29:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/8/2009
Posts: 1,789
Neurons: 5,456
Location: United States - Georgia
doubutsuMother wrote:

The more I look at what is happening around me the more I am convinced that humans today are no smarter than cavemen of prehistory. All our fancy knowledge and we know less than our ancestral hunter gatherers.

Enlightenment? Pfft


Well...... I'll bet the cave men didn't know the definitions of the words in your word list. At least not until Geico came along.
Angel
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:33:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
Quote:
...[state of nature] means anarchy.



BLAMO! we have another winner.


I don't mean to come across rude and for that a apologize. But just switching one word for another isn't going to get us anywhere.



I don't think it was your intention to get anywhere, I suspect that it might have been an attempt to derail the conversation (merely being honest). I don't want to presume that that was your intent, so perhaps you can kindly expatiate on the concept's relevance. And also on the other points whereupon I touched, at the risk of wasting time. There is no use to a thread that isn't understood, is there?
(As a matter of fact the word 'anarchy' can get us somewhere because we can look it up in this wonderful online dictionary and see that it means absence of political authority in one sense. That is a concept you can run with.)
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:40:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
Quote:
I was thinking of modern scientific advancements. Medicine, for example, not morality.


I still don't see the achievement--maybe the animals have it better. Individually, Are you saying you can put more knowledge to use than your ancestors? In the woods I'd rather be a witchdoctor than a Harvard professor.


This to me is convincing:

The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece, 28
Classical Rome, 28
Medieval England, 33
End of 18th Century, 37
Early 20th Century, 50
Circa 1940, 65
Current (in the West), 77-81


Edit: This one is good too, life expectancy history via Wolfram. It may be information specific to one country, I have yet to figure out how Wolfram really works.



[image not available]
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:53:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
What is convincing to you is not to me. Again, I say your knowledge and supposed intellect is only duping you and the everyone else. A simpler person would not stand for your reasoning or fallacious data/stats.


Maybe my love for hot dogs will help you understand.


I went to a hot dog eating contest. All the other contestants were stuffing their faces with disgustingly wet and slimy dogs without any buns or condiments while i pleasantly made and ate 5 perfect hot dogs. When I was not announced as the winner i was surprised, surely I ate the most number of enjoyable hot dogs and each one of them was delicious. I went home disappointed.


Those people with all that crap stuffed in their faces, they are your intellectual elite. They are telling you what to do and think.

I've been looking a long time for someone with a free mind. I always find myself disappointed.


Quote:


I don't think it was your intention to get anywhere, I suspect that it might have been an attempt to derail the conversation (merely being honest). I don't want to presume that that was your intent, so perhaps you can kindly expatiate on the concept's relevance. And also on the other points whereupon I touched, at the risk of wasting time. There is no use to a thread that isn't understood, is there?
(As a matter of fact the word 'anarchy' can get us somewhere because we can look it up in this wonderful online dictionary and see that it means absence of political authority in one sense. That is a concept you can run with.)


A pet peeve of mine is people asking me to do their thinking, reading whatever it is they want. I've worked years as a teacher and i know the process, no one can make another learn. I'll post a summary of my views on the state of nature and the social contract when i get a bit more time.

LeadPal
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:56:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/26/2009
Posts: 461
Neurons: 1,413
Location: Beyond the Impossible
Average life expectancy is a bit skewed due to the extreme infant mortality of the good ol' days. And, of course, one could argue that it's bad for humanity to have so many old people running around. I wouldn't, but I'm sure DM would ;-)
Kat
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:24:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/19/2009
Posts: 878
Neurons: 3,389
doubutsuMother wrote:


Take a look at this forum. Smart people with their smart words are only duping themselves.
A pet peeve of mine is people asking me to do their thinking, reading whatever it is they want. I've worked years as a teacher and i know the process, no one can make another learn. I'll post a summary of my views on the state of nature and the social contract when I get a bit more time.



Just who is asking this of you and are you doing it and if you are doing it, why are you
doing it?
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:25:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
What is convincing to you is not to me. Again, I say your knowledge and supposed intellect is only duping you and the everyone else. A simpler person would not stand for your reasoning.


Maybe my love for hot dogs will help you understand.


I went to a hot dog eating contest. All the other contestants were stuffing their faces with disgustingly wet and slimy dogs without any buns or condiments while i pleasantly made and ate 5 perfect hot dogs. When I was not announced as the winner i was surprised, surely I ate the most number of enjoyable hot dogs and each one of them was delicious. I went home disappointed.


Those people with all that crap stuffed in their faces, they are your intellectual elite. They are telling you what to do and think.

I've been looking a long time for someone with a free mind. I always find myself disappointed.

P.S. I'm starting to lose my patience with you when you keep yapping at me to do your thinking, reading whatever it is you want.


I'm not asking you to do my reading or thinking, I'm asking for clarification of your points. Surely if someone wants to make a point, that point should be explained in order to be comprehensible to others? Surely you want to be understood? I can't compel you to clarify your point, or to go along with my questioning of it. But if you don't then there is virtually no point. It is comparable with an eminent scientist coming forward saying: 'I just thought of a wickedly interesting hypothesis that explains the origin of life with quarks.' 'What is it then?' the response of his or her peers will be. 'Figure it out for yourselves' the scientist says. Obviously the scientist's hypothesis would have made no impact at all. I find myself in a similar position with you. I want to understand you, so I pose questions, your refusal to supply an answer, whether written yourself or not, is a direct refusal of letting me understand the point you want to make.

On a less important note: without impartial, indoctrination-free, scientific thought and empiricism there would be no science. Without science we'd be without computers and dead at an age of about 35. Our society would be horrendously unsatisfactory without science and thus without free minds. I remember that youtube user Thunderf00t uploaded at least one video illustrating the merit of science. I'll see if I can find it.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:27:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
I didn't ask you for TFD definition, i could easily look it up myself. I was curious about your views on the state of nature/anarchy. I wanted to know if you feared the state of nature and if so whether that was a learned behavior or not. I wanted to know if you followed Locke or Hobbes. That certainly would have got me somewhere because i asked the question and was curious for an answer. But that ship has sailed and I will never know what your natural opinion is now. If only you were more honest in some areas rather than others.



I'm ambivalent about being understood but i will try answer your questions with carefully chosen words when I can.

For now here is a quote from Rousseau (it was hard to find fast).

Quote:
I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.


To me this is a seminal passage for understanding the social contract. Many people, including my history teacher, hold the social contract to be superior to the state of nature. Clearly, Rousseau does not as he states the social contract was adopted out of necessity not superiority.

Quote:
To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will--at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?


uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:22:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
I didn't ask you for TFD definition, i could easily look it up myself. I was curious about your views on the state of nature/anarchy. I wanted to know if you feared the state of nature and if so whether that was a learned behavior or not. That certainly would have got me somewhere because i asked the question and was curious for an answer. But that ship has sailed and I will never know what your natural opinion is now. If only you were more honest in some areas rather than others.

Actually you asked what the term 'state of nature' meant to me. Never having come across the term, it didn't mean anything to me, as I have said. That doesn't mean I don't hold an opinion about anarchy. I don't fear it at all, as a matter of fact. But I do think it's too dangerous a condition for a society to be in to remain stable and progressive, although I never contemplated this subject in detail. I don't see why my opinion should be tainted, now that I know what your question actually was. I couldn't have answered it before I knew that. I'm disappointed, by the way, that you should think that I have been unhonest and that my intention is to deceive. Intellectual honesty is a virtue I endeavour to sustain to the best of my ability.

I'm ambivalent about being understood. I post for my sake as much as yours but i will try answer your questions with carefully chosen words when I can.


My first question related to the comparison of the quotes in your first post. What are the significant attributes? One answer to this question, that I thought of, was that you thought these postulatory quotes to be true, but I doubted that and gave a small explanation of why I regarded the upper one as insignificant in that respect. Another was that you considered the people you quoted to be smart, and tried to illustrate that they can be wrong.
Secondly I pointed out the contradictory nature of the fancy-knowledge sentence in your post. What's more interesting, however, is why you think that we as modern human beings know less than our ancestors.
After that I admittedly asserted that we owe much of what distinguishes us from other animals in our lifestyles to the enlightenment. I'm still looking for the above mentioned video, but the rise of life expectancy seems an important differentiator here.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:36:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
For now here is a quote from Rousseau (it was hard to find fast).

Quote:
I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.


To me this is a seminal passage for understanding the social contract. Many people, including my history teacher, hold the social contract to be superior to the state of nature. Clearly, Rousseau does not as he states the social contract was adopted out of necessity not superiority.

Quote:
To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will--at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?




I haven't spent much time pondering political philosophy but in this case I'd like to inject the idea that the social contract stems from our genes as shaped by natural selection. That's to say the reason why people live in a governed society has no rational grounds for the individual, but an irrational subjection to the hierarchy of a family or group simply because the gene-sharing families with a higher individuality could've been more prone to be extinguished. Absent from some, of course, is this social subjection. Mostly from the alpha male type, I suppose.
I'm not convinced that this is true, but nonetheless I think that evolutionary psychology could be a valuable contributor the the debate.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:51:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
My first quote was meant to frame the problem. Intellect is giving people the wrong answers. Orwellian in that irrational ideas are being rationalized by obscure thinking, and it's being called enlightenment. Rothbard says this is going to happen again and again in its own different way for each generation.


The second quote was to illustrate how bad ideas can be correctly rejected by a simple mind yet rationalized, supported, and actually praised by intellectuals.

I didn't connect the dots on purpose.
doubutsuMother
Posted: Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:03:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
Quote:

I haven't spent much time pondering political philosophy but in this case I'd like to inject the idea that the social contract stems from our genes as shaped by natural selection. That's to say the reason why people live in a governed society has no rational grounds for the individual, but an irrational subjection to the hierarchy of a family or group simply because the gene-sharing families with a higher individuality could've been more prone to be extinguished. Absent from some, of course, is this social subjection. Mostly from the alpha male type, I suppose.
I'm not convinced that this is true, but nonetheless I think that evolutionary psychology could be a valuable contributor the the debate.



Again, the same old tricks but with new smarter scientific jargon. This is just another way of saying humans must be inevitably ruled and ultimately abused.

OH, you can say it is hardwired into our genes as an explanation for the injustices of the world but you best be careful where you step because I will be ready to shoot your argument down. Rulers have been declaring their plunder as inevitable for all of history. That is not a new argument.


Rule yourself. The caveman did.
Nibbles
Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 1:31:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2009
Posts: 434
There are far more stupid people procreating than those of intellect.
EllieMae
Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 1:37:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 48
Neurons: 6,579
doubutsuMother wrote:
My first quote was meant to frame the problem. Intellect is giving people the wrong answers. Orwellian in that irrational ideas are being rationalized by obscure thinking, and it's being called enlightenment. Rothbard says this is going to happen again and again in its own different way for each generation.


The second quote was to illustrate how bad ideas can be correctly rejected by a simple mind yet rationalized, supported, and actually praised by intellectuals.

I didn't connect the dots on purpose.


DM, I have to ask: Who has the "simple mind" that correctly rejected the bad idea?
And I also have to ask, would not it be "enlightenment" for humans--such as yourself, say-- to realize we are fooling ourselves (with our intellect)? And if yes, it would, then wouldn't we then have learned more than the hunter gatherers?
And lastly, why so glum? Do you see everything as the "glass half empty"? Does nothing about science or the world bring you joy, wonder or amazement?---If yes, then would that not be a type of enlightenment, too?

Think Think Think
peterhewett
Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 1:47:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2009
Posts: 2,452
Neurons: 3,698
Location: In my head
Ah...doubutsumother playing the devil's advocate again and sucking many in... ah ah ah... you wag.
uuaschbaer
Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:22:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/18/2009
Posts: 1,928
Neurons: 6,180
doubutsuMother wrote:
My first quote was meant to frame the problem. Intellect is giving people the wrong answers. Orwellian in that irrational ideas are being rationalized by obscure thinking, and it's being called enlightenment. Rothbard says this is going to happen again and again in its own different way for each generation.


The second quote was to illustrate how bad ideas can be correctly rejected by a simple mind yet rationalized, supported, and actually praised by intellectuals.

I didn't connect the dots on purpose.


Glad you decided to explain. I can readily agree that we're still constrained by a Zeitgeist, but I also think that there is progress in our communal thinking that we'd miss without intellectualism, the enlightenment, society etc. I'd be interested in a specific example of irrational ideas and obscure thinking. As to the second quote, economics is an unpredictable and badly understood field of science in a wider sense. Of course modern economists can be wrong (although Chinese farmers aren't typically wealthy or in possession of an abundance of food) but that does't mean that the person who rejected the idea without thought is right or credible.

doubutsuMother wrote:
Quote:

I haven't spent much time pondering political philosophy but in this case I'd like to inject the idea that the social contract stems from our genes as shaped by natural selection. That's to say the reason why people live in a governed society has no rational grounds for the individual, but an irrational subjection to the hierarchy of a family or group simply because the gene-sharing families with a higher individuality could've been more prone to be extinguished. Absent from some, of course, is this social subjection. Mostly from the alpha male type, I suppose.
I'm not convinced that this is true, but nonetheless I think that evolutionary psychology could be a valuable contributor the the debate.



Again, the same old tricks but with new smarter scientific jargon. This is just another way of saying humans must be inevitably ruled and ultimately abused.

No it's not, it's an attempt to explain why we have society, it bears no meaning on morality. Difference here.

OH, you can say it is hardwired into our genes as an explanation for the injustices of the world but you best be careful where you step because I will be ready to shoot your argument down. Rulers have been declaring their plunder as inevitable for all of history. That is not a new argument.

Actually no such argument was on my mind. However, I encourage you to shoot my arguments down, only that could further the conversation. I criticize your thoughts, you criticize mine. The snarkiness is just a bonus. Whether you honestly believe what you propose or not, as peterhewett rightly suggested, ultimately doesn't matter. The argument does, but one would expect it to be easier to get the advocate of the devil to argue.

Rule yourself. The caveman did.


Cavemen lived in groups. Members of groups can't have complete ruling over themselves.
Kat
Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 8:29:02 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/19/2009
Posts: 878
Neurons: 3,389
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
If the Asians in your story were clever they'd bound the American's leg with linen before kicking him to sea. Why not use a good bait when there is one?


Applause

Ha!...Love that!
doubutsuMother
Posted: Sunday, December 6, 2009 5:36:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 363
Neurons: 1,059
uuaschbaer wrote:
I'd be interested in a specific example of irrational ideas and obscure thinking.


Keynesian Economics. Of course, those who erroneously think the irrational is rational, obscurity is enlightenment, slavery is freedom, and war is peace, will disagree. They are the great minds of our age that deserve another Orwellian misnomer; smart is stupid.

uuaschbaer wrote:
Chinese farmers aren't typically wealthy or in possession of an abundance of food


Hunter gatherers are estimated to have a lot more leisure time than modern man . Aboriginals in Australia have been documented spending only 20-40 mins a day foraging for abundant food. Who are your poor abused Chinese farmers--are they part of a free society or subjects of a government? Do you have any idea, even the slightest notion, of how much you really pay tribute to your masters?



uusachear wrote:
No it's not, it's an attempt to explain why we have society, it bears no meaning on morality.


Yes it is. You may make genes the agent of government control or part of the state of nature, whichever you like, but it will not change the "is" or the "ought". Your scientific language and intellect will not win any arguments with me. You're going to have to use simple logic and common sense. Here is some lines from Common Sense by Paine.


Quote:
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. the first is a patron, the last is a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting what we furnished the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.


I think genes are part of the state of nature.

Locke wrote:
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it


I am glad you brought up IS/OUGHT because it explains the misunderstanding of Rousseau's social contract better than I could have on my own. Many people place the the social contract under "ought" when it is clearly an "is" according to Rousseau.


uusachear wrote:
Cavemen lived in groups. Members of groups can't have complete ruling over themselves.


The caveman did have limits imposed by nature. I'm saying they understood nature and ruled themselves better than others.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.