Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Police try to outlaw recording of their own crimes ...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Police try to outlaw recording of their own crimes ...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:17 am Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

This is in violation of the law of sufficient reason.

I only accept as true the more limited principle of sufficient reason that allows for brute facts. I'm sure you're familiar with it and can see why nothing here violates it.

Koveras wrote:

A teleological process can't fulfill itself at random. Something has to guide it; it must already carry within it the idea of and the impetus for the finished pattern.

This isn't what I would call a teleological process. The first substance expressing its nature as I've described is inevitable and unavoidable, but it's also incidental. There's no deeper meaning behind it, no goal actively being worked towards, and no idea behind it. Most importantly, there is no ultimate conclusion, only continuance.

Koveras wrote:

Even in your philosophy intellelect and will precede the first substance, rather than proceeding from it.

Intellect is a feature of minds, which is a specific modality of the first substance that occurs much later than many others. It's not uncommon in philosophy to put excessive weight on this phenomenon, but it's not valid to do so.

Koveras wrote:

The people you're describing are what Nietzsche called the last men. In your emancipated world, personally-created values are acceptable only insofar as they don't clash with others; or if they do clash it is only quite politely on the verbal plane. These are not serious, active men with a vision of the Good; they're subhuman trivialities.

This is a complete misinterpretation of what I've described. Mind you, I do think they'd be less prone to physical -- or even emotional -- confrontation than members of primitive cultures, but not for the reasons you or Nietzsche would likely profess. The fact of the matter it it's almost inevitable that values would sharply diverge. The difference is that, because cultures were no longer a threat to one another, confrontation wouldn't be the necessary outcome of that divergence, once again promoting genuine diversity. No longer do the four trend towards the three, or the three towards the two, or so forth, over time.

Koveras wrote:

'Primitive cultures' aimed at a metaphysical goal. They were a channeling towards that goal.

No, primitive cultures aim towards consumption. All that matters is the destruction of the other, and the individual characteristics of the culture are largely irrelevant beyond how much it allows that to be achieved. This is why, as they stand, they can't interact to create new patterns.

Koveras wrote:

'Primitive cultures' knew that man has higher possibilities than self-centred rationality, and knew that only an ordered and unified psychology can attain them. Laws and what you call nonconsentual, limiting culture, afforded that order.

And yet, Koveras, they failed to go anywhere. I feel this is for the reasons I've described.

Koveras wrote:

Permissiveness and what you call emancipation are dead ends: they will not alter human nautre, and they will not produce a better higher-quality culture, they will produce an leveled-down idiocracy. In fact they already have.

I obviously disagree. I suppose we'll see what the next few thousand years bring.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject:

There's no reason to continue this much longer.

Fox wrote:

If the word teleology is objectionable, remove it and you'll find that the critique still sticks.

A thing's nature is, precisely, its idea or essence.

A thing's expression of its nature is, precisely, a movement of its will.

Therefore, even in your system, the first substance is transcended by idea and will.

If you can't understand and coherently confront that, there's no reason to continue at all.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

What you described wasn't very specific, and truthfully seemed more like a harebrained fantasy than a realistic prediction.

Here's what Plato had to say on the emancipated man. I submit that it makes much more sense than your analysis.

[He proceeds] at once to restore Insolence, and Disorder, and Licentiousness, and Shamelessness, in great splendour, accompanied by a numerous retinue, and with crowns on their heads, extolling them, and calling them by soft names, describing Insolence as Good Breeding, and Disorder as Freedom, and Licentiousness as Magnificence, and Shamelessness as Bravery . . . He lives from day to day to the end, in the gratification of the casual appetite, - now drinking himself drunk to the sound of music, and presently putting himself under training; - sometimes idling and neglecting everything, and then living like a student of philosophy. And often he takes a part in public affairs, and starting up, speaks and acts according to the impulse of the moment. Now he follows eagerly in the steps of certain great generals, because he covets their distinctions; and anon he takes to trade, because he envies the successful trader. And there is no order or constraining rule in his life; but he calls this life of his pleasant, and liberal, and happy, and follows it out to the end.

No high-flown creation of new values on a personal basis . . . just a total lack of character. Here's what he said about egalitarian patterns of behaviour:

The father habitually tries to resemble his child and is afraid of his sons, and the son likens himself to the father and feels no awe or fear of his parents so that he may be forsooth a free man. And the resident alien feels himself equal to the citizen and the cotizen to him, and the foreigner likewise . . . The teacher in such case fears and fawns upon the pupils, and the pupils pay no heed to the teacher or to their overseers either. And in general the young ape their elders and vie with them in speech and action, while the old, accomodating themselves to the young, are full of pleasantry and graciousness, imitating the young for fear that they may be thought disagreeable and authoritative.
Even Primitive Plato saw through the self-conceit of the emancipated modern world.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

'Primitive cultures' aimed at a metaphysical goal. They were a channeling towards that goal.

This is pure modern self-conceit. Not even worth addressing.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

And yet, Koveras, they failed to go anywhere. I feel this is for the reasons I've described.

They did go somewhere, it just wasn't where you think they should have. More self-conceit.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

There's no reason to continue this much longer.

I agree, your objections aren't very strong so far.

Koveras wrote:

If the word teleology is objectionable, remove it and you'll find that the critique still sticks.

No, it doesn't. Terms like "teleological" aren't just fluff words one can throw in. They're technical terms with very specific and important meaning to the objection they are a part of. If I were asserting that a teleological process were happening, you might have had a point. Given I'm not, you do not.

Koveras wrote:

A thing's nature is, precisely, its idea or essence.

A thing's expression of its nature is, precisely, a movement of its will.

The very language you're using shows an extreme anthropomorphization of the world around us. Ideas and wills are functions of our particular layer of modality; attributing them to other layers, or trying to understand other layers in terms of them, isn't just a misunderstanding, it's outright incorrect.

A human's expression of its nature is a movement of its will. An atoms expression of its nature is not. A quarks expression of its nature is not. And the first substance's expression of its nature is not. Minds -- and thus wills -- come much later in the system than these things. Things lower than mind express their natures in different ways, through different principles. It's frankly quite intellectually cheap (or primitive, as is the case for ancient philosophers, who couldn't be expected to know better) to simply attempt to attribute the presence of will to one's entire metaphysical system (which is why it happened so often in the earliest philosophic systems; it was more easily conceivable for them).

I have a conception of natures which is totally independent of wills and ideas. It's the stronger for it.

Koveras wrote:

Therefore, even in your system, the first substance is transcended by idea and will.

If you can't understand and coherently confront that, there's no reason to continue at all.

My dealing with your complaints has been completely coherent. However, you're quite taken with the notions you're relying upon and refuse to consider that they're simply incorrect. That's an insurmountable obstacle; no case that I make will convince you to abandon these ideas and the world view based upon them.

Koveras wrote:

If by "make more sense" you mean "says what you yourself want to hear," then yes, I suppose so. This is one of my primary objections with ancient philosophers (and even some modern ones) when it comes to matters ethical and metaphysican, and as an adherent of many of their ideas, unsurprisingly this problem manifests in you as well. Idea, then explanation of why idea must obtain, regardless of the facts. This is a fine way to create interesting thoughts, but it's a very poor way to come to a genuine understanding of the world.

Koveras wrote:

They did go somewhere, it just wasn't where you think they should have.

And yet, they're gone, at least in the form they existed in (outside, perhaps, of extremely primitive pockets of isolated landscape where the people live subsistence existences). Their nature makes them unsustainable in the long run, and for all one might crow about their metaphysical goals, they were ultimately simply undeveloped (I understand you refuse to accept it). Call that conceit all you like, but it's simply reality. Human culture is going to diverge from your ideal, and while you can slander the process all you like, in the long run it will be for the best, as I've described. It's easy to cry that it's a "hair-brained fantasy;" I could just as easily say the same about your idea that primitive cultures have a genuine, meaningful metaphysical goal they were pursuing with their behavior. I don't, because there's simply no point in such attacks, and I have sufficiently strong reasons for objecting to such notions that I feel comfortable they stand alone without such editorialization.

I don't think more explanation is required or beneficial. Your biases won't let you accept what I'm saying, you take certain things for granted which I don't think can be taken for granted, and you've provided what constructive criticism you can, so we've reached an impasse. Thank you for the conversation.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject:

Fox, I think you're out of your league, here.

Koveras wrote:

Here's what he said about egalitarian patterns of behaviour:

Which work is this?

This is really damning of the moderns.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox, I think you're out of your league, here.

That's a hard thing for me to take seriously given every single objection he's made has been ultimately either baseless (appeals to teleology in attempt to refute non-teleological principles, or trying to bring up the principle of sufficient reason at all), or based ideas that have very little support in either evidence or reason. I understand where your sympathies lie, but that doesn't make for meaningful rebuttal.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject:

The Republic ~ 563

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox, I think you're out of your league, here.

That's a hard thing for me to take seriously given every single objection he's made has been ultimately either baseless (appeals to teleology or the principle of sufficient reason), or based ideas that have very little support in either evidence or reason. I understand where your sympathies lie, but that doesn't make for meaningful rebuttal.

The ideas he holds comes from a few sources, be assured of that.

Ever since you mentioned that 'the two layers we are focusing on are the human mind and human culture,' teleological considerations became pertinent. How can the human mind dominate the organs without some concept, it needn't necessarily be conscious, of an end?

Consensual culture? Consensual culture must be pleasant and agreeable, but what happens when its asked to defend itself? I don't simply mean attacked by outside forces, but I mean when it must do whats unpleasant and disagreeable to continue.

Lastly, your consensual culture exists nowhere. You have become the utopian that you despised so much in your Libertarian opponents, who would extol a society that never quite existed as they had described. You admit that people have to escape their culture, the culture they were born into, to become emancipated. And where do they go then? Israel?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox, I think you're out of your league, here.

The ideas he holds comes from a few sources, be assured of that.

Sources aren't the same as evidence and reason, Kuros. This isn't a college class. I don't dispute he has sources. I simply don't treat those sources as right by default (and in many cases would passionately argue them to be wrong).

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Ever since you mentioned that 'the two layers we are focusing on are the human mind and human culture,' teleological considerations became pertinent. How can the human mind dominate the organs without some concept, it needn't necessarily be conscious, of an end?

The human mind dominates its component organs not to any necessary end, but as an inevitable, ongoing expression of its own nature. The reason I don't consider this to be teleological is that there's no actual end being worked towards; no final goal; no state of affairs which, if it can just be achieved and maintained, will mark a genuine, meaningful culmination.

Individual human actions can be described in teleological terms (and, I feel, are the best target for teleological language), but the human itself has no natural end, and to that extent, his domination of his organs has no natural end. Further, and most importantly, the development of culture is not an end of humans; it is something that will incidentally occur as humans pursue their own chosen ends, and is in no way a goal, purpose, or culmination, but simply a phenomenon which yet again (to no end, purpose, or culmination) represents the nature of the first substance.

Note that this applies even to the conscious selection of values and ideas. The human partaking in individually intellectual diversity may well be choosing his values to some particular end. The culture that stems from the interaction of humans who choose similar values, however, is not a part of that end.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Consensual culture? Consensual culture must be pleasant and agreeable, but what happens when its asked to defend itself? I don't simply mean attacked by outside forces, but I mean when it must do whats unpleasant and disagreeable to continue.

Your (or Koveras') assumption that consentual culture must be pleasant and agreeable is in error. The key characteristic of consentual culture is that we are not indoctrinated to it from birth, but rather actively opt into it, and have the meaningful potential to opt out of it. It doesn't follow that the results will universally be pleasant or agreeable in every individual instance; for every person who adopts cultural values that could be characterized in such a way, there's just as likely to be a Koveras who adopts values of mistrust and distance.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Lastly, your consensual culture exists nowhere. You have become the utopian that you despised so much in your Libertarian opponents, who would extol a society that never quite existed as they had described. You admit that people have to escape their culture, the culture they were born into, to become emancipated. And where do they go then? Israel?

I openly admit this is a theory that includes a predictive model about the future. The difference between myself and my Libertarian detractors is that they seek to actively implement policy prescriptions based on their beliefs, while my ideas simply passively predict what will happen. When a Libertarian says, "We should implement idea X, because it will lead to Y," it's reasonable to demand proof before implementing his policies. My theory makes no policy suggestions and calls for no actions. As such, it's in a different category; it doesn't call for the listener to do anything, or even necessarily believe anything. You're still within your rights to deny the outcome as unproven, of course, but unlike Libertarianism (which calls for your assent), your denial has no similar impact on my own theory. To that extent, I think I am not in the same position as the Libertarian, as I'm not asking anyone to do anything as a result of my projections.

Your second question is a good one. Where should they go? You gave the answer yourself, in a way: no where. They don't need to go anywhere. This stage in culture has been a long time in coming for several reasons, but two prominent reasons are the sheer mass of humans required, and the advanced communication technology required, so as to eliminate spatial considerations. A Korean that moves to America doesn't necessarily stop being a Korean culturally, though they may over time become isolated from said culture. With sufficiently advanced communicative ability, even isolation from the culture due to distance can be eliminated as a concern.

This isn't easy subject material, which is why I'm putting it in front of a hostile audience. So far there have been several legitimate points brought up (a confusion about why the teleological nature of human behavior doesn't reflect either on the human in-and-of itself or on human culture, a question about the logistics of how such cultures could operate in the real world, and to a lesser extent confusion about the idea that such cultures must be "pleasant and agreeable"), and a few far less legitimate ones which aren't of any particular value in developing the ideas in question. I had hoped for stronger challenges, but I recognize that's perhaps unfair.

Thank you for the assistance.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

The human mind dominates its component organs not to any necessary end, but as an inevitable, ongoing expression of its own nature.

Energeia? Being-at-work-staying-itself? Surprised to see you go Aristotle on us.

Fox wrote:

The reason I don't consider this to be teleological is that there's no actual end being worked towards; no final goal; no state of affairs which, if it can just be achieved and maintained, will mark a genuine, meaningful culmination.

Oh, wait, this isn't Aristotle at all. I thought you said you were aiming towards emancipation? Emancipation from what towards what? These are not belligerent questions. Koveras claims the modern man stands for nothing. Well, Fox, you appear to be pretty modern.

Fox wrote:

Further, and most importantly, the development of culture is not an end of humans; it is something that will incidentally occur as humans pursue their own chosen ends, and is in no way a goal, purpose, or culmination, but simply a phenomenon which yet again (to no end, purpose, or culmination) represents the nature of the first substance.

You'd be a nihilist, except you refuse to acknowledge the abyss. To get mischievous, for a moment: why does Fox hate the Good?

Fox wrote:

The key characteristic of consentual culture is that we are not indoctrinated to it from birth, but rather actively opt into it, and have the meaningful potential to opt out of it. It doesn't follow that the results will universally be pleasant or agreeable in every individual instance; for every person who adopts cultural values that could be characterized in such a way, there's just as likely to be a Koveras who adopts values of mistrust and distance.

Are you even aware of how Marxist you sound? I don't mean you're calling for a re-distribution of wealth. But you're certainly trying to support the modern academic propensity to keep Hegel stood up upon his head, no matter what the costs. What is it with the materalism combined with the neurotic proclivity on escaping societal oppression? Culture is a good thing. Its a positive word. The irony here is that Koveras and I are way farther to opting out of the Western cultural mindset, and its 'progress,' than you are.

Fox wrote:

Actually, I have no problem with that. I was just noting what a dick you can be when talking about Libertarianism. I'm actually not Libertarian in the very strict sense, but I feel closer to it than I do modern left-wing liberalism.

But its unreasonable to assail an idea simply on the grounds its never been tried before. And thats what you do with the Libertarians. You claim its never been tried (or facetiously and disingeniously claim its been tried in places like Somalia), so thats evidence that its not possible.

Fox wrote:

A Korean that moves to America doesn't necessarily stop being a Korean culturally, though they may over time become isolated from said culture. With sufficiently advanced communicative ability, even isolation from the culture due to distance can be eliminated as a concern.

That makes sense.

Fox wrote:

I had hoped for stronger challenges, but I recognize that's perhaps unfair.

*Snort* So the modern man may lack a chest, but he still has his ego?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Emancipation from indoctrination-based cultures (read: primitive cultures) towards cultures which are the incidental result of their own selected values and ideals (read: cultures of consent). As far as what these individuals will be for, that will vary; as I've maintained from the beginning, this process will ultimately increase, rather than decrease, intellectual diversity. Different men will be for different things. The important feature is that what they are for is of their chosing, not something arbitrarily assigned to them by accident of birth. In a sense Koveras is right: Man will not stand for anything. Rather, individual men will stand for things, and with a passion. It's very easy to passionlessly participate in primitive culture, because it's something you more or less simply fall into. Without such luxury, such laziness becomes impossible.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox wrote:

You'd be a nihilist, except you refuse to acknowledge the abyss. To get mischievous, for a moment: why does Fox hate the Good?

With regards to my theory, because the concept of an overarching Good would weaken rather than strengthen the theory by relying upon what I feel amounts to an intellectual short cut. With regards to my individual life, which is quite separate from this theory (after all, I'm still a participate in a primitive culture myself), because it's prevents us from asking ourselves genuinely challenging questions about ourselves and our actions. The result is comfort at the cost of awareness.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Are you even aware of how Marxist you sound?

Yes, I'm aware of it. I'm comfortable with it as well. I think there's some very reasonable ideas to be found in Marx.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Culture is a good thing. Its a positive word.

I'm not demonizing culture. After all, the emancipatory shift I'm discussing isn't an end to culture, it's a shift from one type of culture to another type. Whether culture is good or bad (which isn't of importance to this particular theory), it's an inevitability. I do feel this type of culture will produce better results for individual humans, but as I said, that's an incidental benefit of such a shift, not the reason for it or justification for it.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

The irony here is that Koveras and I are way farther to opting out of the Western cultural mindset, and its 'progress,' than you are.

I don't disagree. I also genuinely believe that even when people are fully able to partake in individually intellectually diverse lifestyles, there will be people like you and Koveras who lean towards the ideals you hold. There will also be many people who do not. As I said, diversity will increase, not decrease.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

I am a dick about Libertarianism, at least in its more extreme forms.

The Happy Warrior wrote:

so thats evidence that its not possible.

Well, my case is actually, "It's never genuinely been tried before, and thus I oppose any suggestion to subject my nation to it, and don't think that the certainty which certain people feel towards it is justified."

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox wrote:

I had hoped for stronger challenges, but I recognize that's perhaps unfair.

*Snort* So the modern man may lack a chest, but he still has his ego?

You misunderstand. Because this is genuinely my own work (and a work in progress at that), rather than an analysis of someone else's, I really did want the strongest possible challenges regarding it; I'm aware of its imperfections (at least some of them), and want to refine it over time. This is a casual discussion forum, though, not an intensive philosophy forum, so there's only so much I can expect from the other participants involved in terms of either time commitment or interest. Hell, even Leon and geldedgoat haven't jumped into this discussion, and they're both philosophically inclined. I wasn't being sarcastic when I thanked you for your assistance.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:17 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Some questions.

-What is the first substance, and why is it in its nature to grow increasingly complex?

-Is the first substance infinite in nature? If not, how does it manage to develop infinitely?

-Did the first substance have extension in time and space?

-Does the first substance continue to exist?

-Was/is it subject to physical laws?

-If a thing is no more than the sum of its parts, how do you explain emergent qualities?

-Since higher layers depend for their existence on lower layers, how can they be said to dominate lower layers?

-Why do you consider consentual culture more complex than corporate culture? To expand, a corporate culture is hierarchical and has many layers, whereas a consentual culture has only one layer, the human. Isn't that a case of decreasing complexity?

-Do you think this is a purely descriptive theory?

-What do you think will happen after consentual culture is attained?

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:17 am Post subject:

how do you know there was a first substance? Just curious

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:47 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

Fox wrote:

I have answers I'm comfortable with for some of these, but not all of them. I'll answer them as a lump after I'm comfortable with my answers collectively.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject:

recessiontime wrote:

how do you know there was a first substance?

Just curious

It's pretty hard to imagine a universe where at least something isn't fundamental. There's a lot of potential for debate about what exactly that fundamental thing is (and some of the questions above deal in that), but everything can't be contingent.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 8 of 9

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe