# Anyone here interested in philosophy?



## goodatthis (Jul 15, 2016)

I've been reading a decent amount of philosophy lately and I've been putting lots of things on my reading list. I like continental phil much more than analytical phil (I don't really like kant, most of the classic philosophers, mill, etc) and I also tend to lean towards the more critical/leftist end of philosophy, with authors such as Deleuze and Guattari (currently reading Anti-Oedipus, soon to read A Thousand Plateaus), Foucault, Baudrillard, Agamben, Butler, etc, being some of my favorites. Here's a reading list I put together, with them in rough order of interest: 

Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard
Giving an Account of Oneself by Judith Butler
Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life by Giorgio Agamben
Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? by Judith Butler
Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri
Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times by Jasbir Puar
Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere
No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive by Lee Edelman

Despite being much less versed in the literature of analytic philosophy (I probably couldn't pinpoint most ideas or theories to most authors aside from utilitarianism to mill or the categorical imperative to kant), I do know a decent amount about moral phil, which is probably my favorite part of analytical phil, and I've often pondered questions of existence, perception, and reality, specifically solipsism. Other than that, I haven't really read too much on other areas of philosophy, they just don't interest me. Oh and also the classics. I've never ever touched Plato or any of the ancient philosophers lol.

Anyone else here like philosophy, no matter what kind?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

But what does "philosophy" really mean?


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 15, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> But what does "philosophy" really mean?


Already on my reading list.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Jul 15, 2016)

I am but only if it exists, which is questionable.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

Philosophy can be fun. Whoever said that the last 3000 years of philosophy is just a series of footnotes on Plato was about right. I tried wade through a little Aristotle, but he's a real drag. Find a copy of The Republic and read it. It will be well worth your time. Some of Plato's other stuff is pretty short, and really pretty entertaining. I read a bit of other stuff in college, but Plato is about all I remember.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

Sometimes I am interested in philosophical questions. What happens when you die? You are put in a hole. Question? Answer.



Spoiler



I never said that there wasn't an afterlife. I don't believe in one, but you can't argue- you are put in a hole (unless you are cremated or something)


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

Presumptions are interesting things. If you are correct that there is no afterlife (which statement I disagree with) and the typically associated belief that "you" are nothing but a physical body, then you can fairly say that when you die you are put in a hole. Your body is put in a hole, and you can say that you believe that when you die you are put in a hole, but until you disprove the existence of the soul you can't say that when you die YOU are put in a hole.


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 15, 2016)

Is this a question?


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

Which one? 
Anyone interested in philosophy?
What is philosophy? 
What happens when you die? 
Is there such a thing as a soul or an afterlife? 
Self referential questions?


----------



## Malkom (Jul 15, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Which one?
> Anyone interested in philosophy?
> What is philosophy?
> What happens when you die?
> ...


Or instead of you talking about your religion we could talk about more interesting philosophical questions


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

What is life?
*grabs popcorn*



One Wheel said:


> Presumptions are interesting things. If you are correct that there is no afterlife (which statement I disagree with) and the typically associated belief that "you" are nothing but a physical body, then you can fairly say that when you die you are put in a hole. Your body is put in a hole, and you can say that you believe that when you die you are put in a hole, *but until you disprove the existence of the soul* you can't say that when you die YOU are put in a hole.


and burden of proof please


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

Malkom said:


> Or instead of you talking about your religion we could talk about more interesting philosophical questions


That was a question posed by JustinTimeCuber that I was repeating. I am happy to discuss either religion or philosophy, although I admit that the two are closely connected in my mind. Questions of the soul and afterlife are at least pondered by every religion I am aware of, so it's not an issue of discussing MY religion either.



JustinTimeCuber said:


> and burden of proof please


Yes, the burden of proof is properly on you, since you made the initial claim (albeit possibly unwittingly). If there is no soul, then you are correct that when you die you are put in a hole. If you have a soul that is distinct from your body, then that assertion is incorrect. The question is: what are you? Until that question is answered, then the question of what happens when you die remains an open question.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> That was a question posed by JustinTimeCuber that I was repeating. I am happy to discuss either religion or philosophy, although I admit that the two are closely connected in my mind. Questions of the soul and afterlife are at least pondered by every religion I am aware of, so it's not an issue of discussing MY religion either.


There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.



A negative claim does not absolve you of the burden of proof. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that it is possible to either prove or disprove the existence of the soul with mathematical certainty, and that's my point. You can believe what you like, just be clear what it is that you believe to be true and what is definitely true.


----------



## Chree (Jul 15, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.



I think that's why he's saying you have the burden of proof. "Making a negative claim" is not the same thing as "not making a positive claim".

If I say "There are no cubes on my desk", I have still made a factual claim. But if I say "I don't know if there are cubes on my desk", the question is still open, but I am not burdened with proving whether or not cubes are currently on my desk.

Not that you ever actually made a claim. You simply stated what you believe.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

Chree said:


> Not that you ever actually made a claim. You simply stated what you believe.



He stated what he believed as fact. That's what I was picking on. Sorry if I was too harsh.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

Generally if you can't prove to me that something exists then it probably doesn't exist. I don't think I need to PROVE that there is no teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars.

I never stated that there is no soul as fact, just as I can't state that there is no teapot. I am convinced, however, that it is incredibly unlikely that either the teapot or the soul exist.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 15, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Generally if you can't prove to me that something exists then it probably doesn't exist. I don't think I need to PROVE that there is no teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars.
> 
> I never stated that there is no soul as fact, just as I can't state that there is no teapot. I am convinced, however, that it is incredibly unlikely that either the teapot or the soul exist.



First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.


----------



## Chree (Jul 15, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.
> 
> Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.



Maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, but issues of solipsism shouldn't make a difference when it comes to proving things.

Whether or not this is an actual reality or only my perception of reality is irrelevant to the fact that I am apparently stuck dealing with what, by all accounts, seems to be "The Reality". And if you and I can agree that we're both chillin in the same reality, and can work together to figure things out, then solipsism needn't be a question when it comes to proofs.

That goes back to those presumptions you mentioned, of course. But if we're talking about what matters, then for all other things, solipsism is (IMHO) a useless consideration.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 15, 2016)

First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely. * "matters" is a hazy, subjective term that in my mind does not belong in philosophy. What if I instead asked whether or not there is a UFO orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars, aboard which there are intelligent aliens and technology capable of destroying our planet? Equally un-provable, and therefore likely false, but that matters, doesn't it?*

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence. *I would. Everything else could be an illusion created by my brain and not really exist at all. You might not exist. From your perspective (if you have one lol) I might not exist. Unless you want to make a few assumptions, the only thing you can KNOW is that you think and therefore "are", as Descartes would put it.
*
Solipsism is fundamentally true, because the senses are not 100% reliable and can lie to you. This does not mean that you should live as if nothing is real, just that it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything is real, and instead need to assume things that could be viewed to have a 99.99999999999999% chance of being true or real.


----------



## Chree (Jul 15, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Solipsism is fundamentally true, because the senses are not 100% reliable and can lie to you. This does not mean that you should live as if nothing is real, just that it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything is real, and instead need to assume things that could be viewed to have a 99.99999999999999% chance of being true or real.



I don't think what you're describing, about senses and such, is exactly the problem solipsism refers to. Our faulty brains get some things wrong, to be sure. But for most people, it can also be demonstrated that they reliably get things right. So saying that "solipsism is fundamentally true" does not hold up. Unless there's a broader point you're making that I missed.

There is currently no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, but there's also no proof that a solution does not exist... so it remains an interesting question. But just to finish a point I was making in my previous post... while it's an interesting question, it doesn't seem to serve a function to pretty much any other question. It seems to me it's just an obstruction that people can and should avoid if they want to get anywhere else.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 16, 2016)

Well, if we can't trust our senses, then we can't tell what is going on around us. Our senses could be completely fake, and we wouldn't be able to tell. I'm not saying that that's true, but that you can't be sure anything other than the self actually exists.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 16, 2016)

Chree said:


> Maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, but issues of solipsism shouldn't make a difference when it comes to proving things.
> 
> Whether or not this is an actual reality or only my perception of reality is irrelevant to the fact that I am apparently stuck dealing with what, by all accounts, seems to be "The Reality". And if you and I can agree that we're both chillin in the same reality, and can work together to figure things out, then solipsism needn't be a question when it comes to proofs.
> 
> That goes back to those presumptions you mentioned, of course. But if we're talking about what matters, then for all other things, solipsism is (IMHO) a useless consideration.



My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.

I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.

If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls. 

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.
> 
> I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
> If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.
> ...


If there is an afterlife, then killing someone isn't really that big of a deal. It would only affect them by a few decades and they would have died anyway. If there is not an afterlife, then, from a moral standpoint, taking someone's life is taking someone's only shot at consciousness. 50 years is 0% of an eternity but 65% of a lifetime. If people live on after dying, then what's really wrong with killing someone - Especially if this "afterlife" is a sort of Heaven? I think we should act as though this life is all there is. If it gives you comfort to believe in an afterlife, do whatever you want, but don't waste this life, which is likely your only shot, at trying to get into the exclusive club of whatever God you believe in.


----------



## Cale S (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.
> 
> Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.



While I agree that believing in a soul/afterlife can improve your views on and quality of life (one cause for the suicide rate to be higher among atheists), not believing in one can lead you to value life more, and motivate you to experience life to its fullest while you can.


----------



## Chree (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.
> 
> I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
> If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.
> ...



You've essentially delivered Pascal's Wager... which puts us further down the road of talking almost exclusively about religion and not philosophy in general. To be honest, I don't really like religious debate (at least not on this forum). But I will say that "Crash Course Philosophy" did a pretty good job of discussing Pascal's Wager on Youtube. Basically everything you said and I would say is addressed there.

Edit: @Cale S also nailed it. I would also add that some beliefs come with enough baggage to do real harm to one's self or others (also addressed in the Crash Course video). And I don't think either of us are saying you're wrong... we're just saying is extremely subjective.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.
> 
> I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
> If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.
> ...



Two things: 

First, I think if we go back to the original context that this whole debate was brought up in, (if you are buried, is it YOU that it is being or is it your body) you don't even need to prove the existence of a soul in a metaphysical or religious sense to prove why it is not you that is being buried, it is merely your body. The self is only the self because of our identity (which could technically be argued to be the soul), and identity as we know it would cease to exist if there is no life to sustain it. 

However, that's relatively semantic. The second thing I want to bring up is that you justified why believing in the existence of a soul is a pragmatic good, but that doesn't necessarily mean a soul exists. I personally do not agree with your belief that a soul exists, but I do think your argument is true. However, I choose to live my life in such a way that I use my own internal moral compass for guidance rather than being governed by a religion that dictates what I should do in order to have an afterlife or an eternal soul. This view is probably influenced by Nietzsche, if we're being entirely honest lol

Also, this whole thing gave me an idea- what if we posted topics about philosophy to debate? Maybe a philosophical debate thread??


----------



## DTCuber (Jul 16, 2016)

Why did the chicken cross the road?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 16, 2016)

DTCuber said:


> Why did the chicken cross the road?


what do you mean by "chicken"?


----------



## Chree (Jul 16, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> what do you mean by "chicken"?



How can you be sure the road didn't cross the chicken?


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

Chree said:


> How can you be sure the road didn't cross the chicken?


Maybe that's why the chicken decided to cross it, for revenge purposes. Never cross an angry chicken.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 16, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> instead need to assume things that could be viewed to have a 99.99999999999999% chance of being true or real.


how do you calculate probability?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 16, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> how do you calculate probability?


you don't


----------



## Malkom (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.
> 
> Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.


why does it matter if it matters? and maybe the teapot matters for someone else, your subjective thoughts isnt the objective truth. Btw saying there is no soul inst really a statement its just a comment on your statement that the soul exist. If i said i have a pink unicorn under my bed would you belive me? No, you wouldnt unless i had proof, its the one that believes that should show evidence not the nonbeliver.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

My post got deleted, I guess speedsolving is officially a control society, subjecting the masses to biopolitical action which will eventually escalate to violence. The panopticon is watching you.

That's foucault's philosophy by the way.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 16, 2016)

Interesting thread. Personally enjoy reading things to do with philosophy of mind, and do tend to learn more towards analytic phil. I've been thinking about looking at the eastern side of things when I get more time.

Amusingly I've read some Aris./Plato/Kant/Mill but none of the philosophers you mentioned 

I'm currently hoping to work through:
Critique of Pure Reason
Being & Time
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Also curious about Godel-Escher-Bach, so I might look into that at some point.


----------



## stoic (Jul 16, 2016)

I've become interested in philosophy in the last couple of years. 
As my username suggests, I particularly like the stoics. There's a lot of stuff to be found in Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" and Seneca's letters which I find to be of practical use. As Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius was the most powerful man in the world, and yet he took the time to write down what he was thinking: it's incredible that we have access to that. 
I've recently been reading Epicurus, although sadly most of his work was tragically destroyed and we have only fragments and second-hand accounts of most of his philosophy. How I would love to be able to read his 37-volume "On Nature" which is almost completely lost!
I've also recently found some of Hegel's stuff about religion interesting, and I'm planning to read Adam Smith - I'm open to recommendations...
For anyone interested, at any level, I'd highly recommend the "Philosophize This!" podcast, it's very accessible. And if anyone is looking for a gentle introduction, the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" reads more like a novel than anything else. 
Good idea for a thread, thanks for posting.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

stoic said:


> Adam Smith


According to the literature I've been reading, I think you mean "Satan himself"


stoic said:


> Good idea for a thread, thanks for posting.


No problem!


----------



## stoic (Jul 16, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> According to the literature I've been reading, I think you mean "Satan himself"


Care to elaborate?


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

stoic said:


> Care to elaborate?


Well a lot of the authors I've been reading (Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Hardt and Negri) are very critical of capitalism, and since Adam Smith is the founder of capitalism, there could definitely be some conflict between their views haha


----------



## stoic (Jul 16, 2016)

Ah ok. 
I'm not really interested in discussing politics (particularly in the left/right sense and yes, I understand the connection with philosophy) but thanks for the reply.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 16, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> Well a lot of the authors I've been reading (Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Hardt and Negri) are very critical of capitalism, and since Adam Smith is the founder of capitalism, there could definitely be some conflict between their views haha



It's probably overstating the case to describe Adam Smith as the founder of capitalism, and while I will agree that capitalism is hardly perfect it's really not _that_ bad.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> It's probably overstating the case to describe Adam Smith as the founder of capitalism, and while I will agree that capitalism is hardly perfect it's really not _that_ bad.


You're right, Smith definitely wasn't the sole founder of capitalism. 
And I agree to a certain extent, on a philosophical level capitalism isn't that bad, but the way it's used can cause lots of harm (mainly a desire for profit facilitated by out of control and unregulated capitalism, like for profit prisons incentivizing incarceration, for example).


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 16, 2016)

Mixed-market systems are best. Any system in it's extreme will generate more problems than it is worth.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 16, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> You're right, Smith definitely wasn't the sole founder of capitalism.
> And I agree to a certain extent, on a philosophical level capitalism isn't that bad, but the way it's used can cause lots of harm (mainly a desire for profit facilitated by out of control and unregulated capitalism, like for profit prisons incentivizing incarceration, for example).



Any system can be misused. The worst mass incarcerations in history have been perpetrated by decidedly non-capitalist regimes. Especially the Soviet Union, but also China, North Korea, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. In my book starving millions of people to death is much worse than putting thousands or tens of thousands in relatively comfortable prison cells with adequate food and medical care. Not that the latter is at all a good thing, just a lesser evil.

Edit:
And, I would add, those regimes that perpetrated mass killings were operating on the assumption that people are merely cogs, to go back to the earlier discussion of souls, and why it matters whether people have souls. Furthermore, the best explanation I've heard for why the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews in the Holocaust was that they convinced themselves that Jews were mere animals without souls. That's why philosophy matters.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Any system can be misused. The worst mass incarcerations in history have been perpetrated by decidedly non-capitalist regimes. Especially the Soviet Union, but also China, North Korea, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. In my book starving millions of people to death is much worse than putting thousands or tens of thousands in relatively comfortable prison cells with adequate food and medical care. Not that the latter is at all a good thing, just a lesser evil.
> 
> Edit:
> And, I would add, those regimes that perpetrated mass killings were operating on the assumption that people are merely cogs, to go back to the earlier discussion of souls, and why it matters whether people have souls. Furthermore, the best explanation I've heard for why the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews in the Holocaust was that they convinced themselves that Jews were mere animals without souls. That's why philosophy matters.


I think those regimes committed those atrocities from the power that they found in things other than capital. The authoritarian left and communism is definitely not a good model for society, but in reality Mao and Pol Pot were really not communists as Marx contextualized it. I think a form of capitalism that is regulated in such a way that there are limits on how far people can go with their power (capital) is the best, such as ensuring corporations aren't getting away tax-free or able to cause harm to minorities or cultures. When corporations go to extreme lengths to ensure they make money, that's where problems start to arise that are much more subtle that Mao's killings but nearly as dangerous. Colonialism in places like India were a result of the British trying to make money, just like how big agriculture companies make a killing off of farmers from our country and others which depriving them of the basic necessities. Some might call this democratic socialism, but I don't think that's the best way to describe it, plus people get a little ancy when they hear about socialism.

Also, regarding the Holocaust, two books in my reading list, Homo Sacer and Frames of War, answer the question you pose very well, with Frames of War being very close to your explanation, although slightly different. Homo Sacer is actually specific to the Holocaust, although I haven't read the entire thing so I don't want to give an innaccurate explanation. Frames of War argues that there are frames embedded in people's perceptions of others that dictate whether or not the other person is recognizable as a human being, which seems to be very true since almost every hate group argues that the subject of their hate is non-human. The nazis believed jews were like animals, the KKK believes blacks are descended from animals, anti-gay groups believe non-heterosexuals are basically non human, etc.


----------



## Chree (Jul 16, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Edit:
> And, I would add, those regimes that perpetrated mass killings were operating on the assumption that people are merely cogs, to go back to the earlier discussion of souls, and why it matters whether people have souls. Furthermore, the best explanation I've heard for why the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews in the Holocaust was that they convinced themselves that Jews were mere animals without souls. That's why philosophy matters.



This can also be made into an argument against believing that souls matter. For instance, if I didn't believe a soul existed at all, then trying to tell me a particular group of people was absent them, then it wouldn't make a difference to me. Thus, I couldn't be persuaded into committing atrocities on the grounds that I mattered more than some other group.

Edit: Although it just occurred to me, you get a similar result if you couldn't possibly be convinced that no human didn't have a soul (lots of negatives there, sorry). Depending on the particular set of ethics one subscribes to, they could never be convinced to kill under any condition.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 16, 2016)

Chree said:


> This can also be made into an argument against believing that souls matter. For instance, if I didn't believe a soul existed at all, then trying to tell me a particular group of people was absent them, then it wouldn't make a difference to me. Thus, I couldn't be persuaded into committing atrocities on the grounds that I mattered more than some other group.



I was noting two different things going on. The clearest examples are perhaps The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. My understanding is that the average German in the 1930s and 40s took the existence of the soul for granted, but they allowed themselves to be convinced that Jews (and other groups, but predominantly Jews) were inferior. If I believe that I have a soul and you don't that opens up the door for all sorts of atrocities.

The Soviet Union example is perhaps the more pertinent here. In that case the Soviet government was an explicitly atheist state: they denied the existence of God, individual souls, etc. So in that system everyone is understood to have equal value, but only inasmuch as you benefit society. In their understanding the Kulaks, for example, were a detriment to society, and since they did not have any special value as human beings they were subjected to terrible persecution, and millions were killed. Ultimately it doesn't really matter if you believe that one group of people has less value than you do because you have a soul and they don't, or because nobody has a soul and they're in your way. Either way, when you suggest that either some people or all people do not have inherent and transcendent value as human beings you run into really big problems.


----------



## Chree (Jul 16, 2016)

I guess this is where Nietzsche comes in.

Edit: which, being honest, I've never read and only know a little about.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 16, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> When corporations go to extreme lengths to ensure they make money, that's where problems start to arise that are much more subtle that Mao's killings but nearly as dangerous. Colonialism in places like India were a result of the British trying to make money, just like how big agriculture companies make a killing off of farmers from our country and others which depriving them of the basic necessities.



I think you might be underestimating the scale of Mao's killings. R.J Rummel, in his book _Death by Government_ estimates that the number of Chinese people killed by the communist government between 1949 and 1987 at 35,200,000, possibly as high as 102,000,000 and with an extreme low-end estimate of 6,000,000. At the very low end that's 3/4 the population of New York City, with a most likely figure somewhere between the entire population of California and the entire population of Texas, and possibly as much as the combined populations of California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

As to agriculture, I'm not sure it's fair to blame big agriculture companies. I am a farmer, and not a big one, and the problem is mostly government policies not big ag. Big ag is really a result of government policies, not unfettered capitalism.



goodatthis said:


> Frames of War argues that there are frames embedded in people's perceptions of others that dictate whether or not the other person is recognizable as a human being, which seems to be very true since almost every hate group argues that the subject of their hate is non-human. The nazis believed jews were like animals, the KKK believes blacks are descended from animals, anti-gay groups believe non-heterosexuals are basically non human, etc.



Yes, this is pretty much what I'm talking about, I'm just using the term "soul" instead of "frame" because I think there is some basis for objective belief when you talk about a soul, whereas a frame is inherently subjective.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I think you might be underestimating the scale of Mao's killings. R.J Rummel, in his book _Death by Government_ estimates that the number of Chinese people killed by the communist government between 1949 and 1987 at 35,200,000, possibly as high as 102,000,000 and with an extreme low-end estimate of 6,000,000. At the very low end that's 3/4 the population of New York City, with a most likely figure somewhere between the entire population of California and the entire population of Texas, and possibly as much as the combined populations of California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.


My point is that while Mao's killings were bad, they were not a result of the same forces that resist capitalism that I discuss. His killings were in the name of brutality and authoritarianism towards the working class, which is the opposite of what marx originally called for and extremely opposed to what democratic socialism type forces call for today. Additionally, what I'm saying is that the reason why extreme capitalist endeavors are so dangerous is because they are subtle and no one pays attention to them. Obviously objectively speaking 35 million people dead is worse, but it's the fact that there are certain forms of violence that are subtle such as colonialism that makes my argument matter.


One Wheel said:


> As to agriculture, I'm not sure it's fair to blame big agriculture companies. I am a farmer, and not a big one, and the problem is mostly government policies not big ag. Big ag is really a result of government policies, not unfettered capitalism.


But the government is one of the apparatuses of capitalism that allow it to function unfettered, for example, "free market" principles are employed by the government by implementing things like corporate tax loopholes, which as we all know, means the public pays more taxes and we also get less money to fund things that aid the public. Unfettered capitalism is in the interest of making money and social concerns go by the wayside under that sort of mentality. There are countless other examples of how the government allowing capitalism to do whatever it wants causes harm to society, which I'd be happy to give to you.

@the mods, just so you know all of this stuff is pretty relevant to philosophy, this is just an applied discussion of the philosophy of capitalism and philosophy IS inherently political in certain ways since it deals, generally, with the interactions that occur in society, which could also be called the sociopolitical sphere. Just so you don't think we're getting off topic in the off topic forum (why that matters is a whole another question, I'm just a little sad that you deleted my pretty dank meme)


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> My point is that while Mao's killings were bad, they were not a result of the same forces that resist capitalism that I discuss. His killings were in the name of brutality and authoritarianism towards the working class, which is the opposite of what marx originally called for and extremely opposed to what democratic socialism type forces call for today. Additionally, what I'm saying is that the reason why extreme capitalist endeavors are so dangerous is because they are subtle and no one pays attention to them. Obviously objectively speaking 35 million people dead is worse, but it's the fact that there are certain forms of violence that are subtle such as colonialism that makes my argument matter.



The problem is that as far as I can tell every country that has made a serious effort to implement Marx's ideas, or what they claim as Marx's ideas, has ended up killing massive numbers of people: the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, even Cuba. You can argue that they haven't implemented the ideas correctly, and you may be right, but it may also be that there is something inherent in the ideas that tends toward really terrible things even if the ideas themselves are not explicitly bad. 



goodatthis said:


> But the government is one of the apparatuses of capitalism that allow it to function unfettered, for example, "free market" principles are employed by the government by implementing things like corporate tax loopholes, which as we all know, means the public pays more taxes and we also get less money to fund things that aid the public. Unfettered capitalism is in the interest of making money and social concerns go by the wayside under that sort of mentality. There are countless other examples of how the government allowing capitalism to do whatever it wants causes harm to society, which I'd be happy to give to you.
> 
> @the mods, just so you know all of this stuff is pretty relevant to philosophy, this is just an applied discussion of the philosophy of capitalism and philosophy IS inherently political in certain ways since it deals, generally, with the interactions that occur in society, which could also be called the sociopolitical sphere. Just so you don't think we're getting off topic in the off topic forum (why that matters is a whole another question, I'm just a little sad that you deleted my pretty dank meme)



A true free market would not be regulated by the government. I do not advocate such a pure system, I do believe that some controls are necessary. In the case of agriculture I do believe that many of the current problems were caused by government interference (at the time probably necessary due to labor shortage because of many young men in the military) in farming during WWII. The bad news is that even though the problems were caused by government interference, if the government were to get out altogether it would simply exacerbate the problem, as can be seen in many former soviet satellite states now. The good news in the United States is that farm policy is actually moving in the right direction, but that's a very long discussion that has very little to do with philosophy and much more to do with economics.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 17, 2016)

Just a suggestion. I think we should make a separate thread for economics/politics and keep this one for stuff like epistomology or metaphysics


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

the politics of metaphysics

MULTIVERSE THEORY FOR PRESIDENT 2016


----------



## Dene (Jul 17, 2016)

You kiddies are all being tremendously naive, trying to explain mass murder by religion or politics. In reality, religion and politics are merely excuses, or vehicles, that rulers use to manipulate the masses to their own personal will. Usually the explanation for such mass killings is very simple: tribalism (funnily enough I mentioned this in another thread recently). That is, the tendency to associate oneself with a group, and to see other groups as "rivals" or "enemies" or whatever. Those with power simply use religion or politics to enforce their tribal views.

As for Marx vs capitalism, as the discussion seems to be heading towards, I think the proof is in the pudding. Where would you rather live right now; one of the capitalist countries, or a child of communism? You might not like the underlying principles, but the final consequences of capitalism are a more open, more accepting, and more free society. The embracing of all ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, etc. will only be found in a capitalist society.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

Dene said:


> You kiddies are all being tremendously naive, trying to explain mass murder by religion or politics. In reality, religion and politics are merely excuses, or vehicles, that rulers use to manipulate the masses to their own personal will. Usually the explanation for such mass killings is very simple: tribalism (funnily enough I mentioned this in another thread recently). That is, the tendency to associate oneself with a group, and to see other groups as "rivals" or "enemies" or whatever. Those with power simply use religion or politics to enforce their tribal views.



You bring up an interesting point. Tribalism, in its various forms, may be the strongest driver of what I WANT to do to other people. But at the end of the day what I actually do will be determined by what I believe about the nature of humanity and the existence and nature of God. If I believe that I will burn in hell for eternity if I kill you, then it doesn't matter how much my family hates yours, I'm just going to clench my fist and mutter when we pass each other in the street.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

Dene said:


> You kiddies are all being tremendously naive, trying to explain mass murder by religion or politics. In reality, religion and politics are merely excuses, or vehicles, that rulers use to manipulate the masses to their own personal will. Usually the explanation for such mass killings is very simple: tribalism (funnily enough I mentioned this in another thread recently). That is, the tendency to associate oneself with a group, and to see other groups as "rivals" or "enemies" or whatever. Those with power simply use religion or politics to enforce their tribal views.


If there's anything I've learned from my readings or from sociology courses, there is never one sole cause to societal problems. Authoritarianism on the almost libidinal or psychological level may be caused by tribalism, but it's certainly also caused by things like greed or hate and there is also the question of the structures that allow those killings to take place (which is mainly what I'm talking about). To say that we're both wrong would definitely be an oversimplification of the problem.



Dene said:


> As for Marx vs capitalism, as the discussion seems to be heading towards, I think the proof is in the pudding. Where would you rather live right now; one of the capitalist countries, or a child of communism? You might not like the underlying principles, but the final consequences of capitalism are a more open, more accepting, and more free society. The embracing of all ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, etc. will only be found in a capitalist society.


I think you and One Wheel are misinterpreting my stance. I'm not trying to prove communism is a good thing and I've stated this in a previous post, rather, I am saying that the countries that have implemented "communist" ideals are the exact opposite of communist ideals. Marx thought the proletariat should take back what's theirs from the bourgeoisie, yet the countries that were supposedly communist killed the proletariat. What is really at play here is the manipulation of people's perceptions of communism and marx to think that Mao, Pol Pot, etc were perfect examples of Marx's ideals, when in reality it's completely false. Just because people do it wrong doesn't mean it's not a good philosophy.

What I'm actually talking about here is the idea of democratic socialism or a capitalist economy which is regulated by the government in such a way that huge corporations are not allowed to oppress the masses. If you want to talk about how the proof is in the pudding, look at places like the US vs Scandinavian countries. The US is heralded for being one of the most economically free nations yet it has enormous rates of poverty, mass incarceration, and use of fossil fuels, and income inequality is ridiculous. All of these are a direct result of unregulated capitalism. Poverty and income inequality are made possible by keeping the poor in their place with an absence of a higher minimum wage among lots of other things, while corporations get tax breaks from politicians. Mass incarceration is fueled by the massive waste of time and money called the War on Drugs as well as for-profit prisons, giving an incentive for the government to incarcerate people and basically make them do slave labor for extremely low pay. The use of fossil fuels is symptomatic of capitalism's inherent drive to produce, and insofar as renewable energy is not the most cost effective at the moment, big oil companies would much rather produce as much energy as cheaply as possible without caring what happens to the environment. Plus, you also talk about how capitalism allows for the most acceptance, but what about the image of the black male thug that has been produced by society as a result of continuing cycles of poverty and mass incarceration? Or what about the fact that slavery was inherently tied to the capitalist drive for unregulated labor? Or the commodification of various identity politics movements by capitalism? Or the production of the ideal body image of women by clothing companies? There are many example of how a purely capitalist society does not create acceptance. However, it's not even a question of acceptance anymore as the way oppression is manifested nowadays is in societal structures, which capitalism alters in such a way that people experience lots of hard times, most of which are linked to poverty. Now, let's look at Scandinavian countries. They have what most would consider to be a socialist economy, yet they do not have high tensions with other countries, they don't have a lot of corruption, and they have one of the highest happiness rates in the world. There's your proof in the pudding. It also disproves your tribalism hypothesis since Scandinavia was pretty much the origin of tribalist conquest, with the Vikings a long time ago.

E: Also, the communist countries today that people often reference (China, NoKo) are not communist. China is "communist" because it is technically led by the communist party, but they trade freely with other nations and have a booming capitalist economy. The reason why living conditions are bad in some areas of China is because of the huge amounts of production and capitalist exploitation that takes place, which is actually a result of capitalism, not communism. See, just another example of the subtle ways our perception is tainted by capitalist structures. And North Korea is really just fascism, I doubt there's a single thing in the Communist Manifesto that Kim Jong-un actually abides by.


----------



## Malkom (Jul 17, 2016)

Dene said:


> As for Marx vs capitalism, as the discussion seems to be heading towards, I think the proof is in the pudding. Where would you rather live right now; one of the capitalist countries, or a child of communism? You might not like the underlying principles, but the final consequences of capitalism are a more open, more accepting, and more free society. The embracing of all ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, etc. will only be found in a capitalist society.


I dont really get this part of your text, communism and Capitalism has nothing do about accepting people, religion or nothing like that. Communism and capitalism is just about economics, in an extremely capitalistic area the state have no power in the economic system and everything is owned by company's that want to make more money and in an extremely communistic area all money goes to the state but the state pays for everything. Communism is "Mine is mine and your are mine" and in a sense everybody owns everything together, there are no classes. Capitalism is "war and peace are business and nothing but business" everything can and will be used to make more money. They have nothing do to with Liberty or fascism, genocide or pride festivals. I think way to many people forget what these words actually mean and give communism a bad name for things it hasnt Done.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

Yes, communism in its pure form is simply an economic system. Neither communism nor capitalism has anything to do with gun ownership or gay rights.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Yes, communism in its pure form is simply an economic system. Neither communism nor capitalism has anything to do with gun ownership or gay rights.


I think that's a vast oversimplification of how things work. To believe that the economic sphere is entirely separate from the sociopolitical sphere is a false assumption. Everything is always connected in some way or another and there is almost nothing that is entirely separate from another. I'll shamelessly promote articles read in my sociology course, as this one is quite good on this issue: http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readings/SOCI101/Mills-The_Promise_of_Sociology-Chp1.pdf
If you don't feel like reading a lot, you can skip the first page for the most part.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

I didn't say that they weren't connected, I just said that they aren't intrinsically connected. It's kind of like the 2D political grid thing. 





A lot of people, myself included, fall roughly on the line from lower left to upper right on the grid. However, although they are connected, the scales don't have to be. That's why the 3rd biggest party in the US is the Libertarian Party, which is decidedly NOT on that line, falling closer to the lower right.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I didn't say that they weren't connected, I just said that they aren't intrinsically connected. It's kind of like the 2D political grid thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think there's a relatively semantic distinction between things being connected and intrinsically connected. In a vacuum it could still be argued that capitalism has a social or political dimension to it, otherwise it would not be capitalism. Just like how a tree would not be a tree without soil and nutrients, saying capitalism is purely an economic system would be like saying a tree is just a bunch of wood: it's overly reductive. 

Also, as a side note, have you taken the political compass test? It doesn't take that long and I think it's pretty interesting, here's a link: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test It basically says where exactly you are on that chart, and although it may not be super accurate (it said I sided with a soft form of anarchism) I think it's still a decent insight into your political/economic views. I was about where the L in Left is for Libertarian Left, if not slightly more to the left and down.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> What is really at play here is the manipulation of people's perceptions of communism and marx to think that Mao, Pol Pot, etc were perfect examples of Marx's ideals, when in reality it's completely false. Just because people do it wrong doesn't mean it's not a good philosophy.
> 
> What I'm actually talking about here is the idea of democratic socialism or a capitalist economy which is regulated by the government in such a way that huge corporations are not allowed to oppress the masses. If you want to talk about how the proof is in the pudding, look at places like the US vs Scandinavian countries. The US is heralded for being one of the most economically free nations yet it has enormous rates of poverty, mass incarceration, and use of fossil fuels, and income inequality is ridiculous. All of these are a direct result of unregulated capitalism. Poverty and income inequality are made possible by keeping the poor in their place with an absence of a higher minimum wage among lots of other things, while corporations get tax breaks from politicians. Mass incarceration is fueled by the massive waste of time and money called the War on Drugs as well as for-profit prisons, giving an incentive for the government to incarcerate people and basically make them do slave labor for extremely low pay. The use of fossil fuels is symptomatic of capitalism's inherent drive to produce, and insofar as renewable energy is not the most cost effective at the moment, big oil companies would much rather produce as much energy as cheaply as possible without caring what happens to the environment.



Capitalism isn't perfect, and I haven't seen anyone on here advocating a pure libertarian economic system, which is what you are describing as capitalism. There is an idea called The Tragedy of the Commons that says where there is a shared resource (in the original example a pasture) but an individual benefit from using it (originally grazing individually owned animals on it) it will tend to be overused to the point that it is useless to everyone. This concept can and has been expanded to consider all of earth's natural resources as a Commons, the idea being that if I dump pollution into the air I benefit more from getting rid of waste cheaply than I am hurt, because the benefit is concentrated but everyone on earth suffers, so the negative effect is spread out. The proper role of government in economics, in my opinion, is to prevent this kind of thing. It will be a never-ending debate as to what exactly that looks like, but that's ok. There are limits to capitalism, and a good government will regulate to some extent, but it is true that when people are acting in their own best interest they work harder and more effectively than they do if they are just working because that's what you do. We're selfish that way.



goodatthis said:


> Plus, you also talk about how capitalism allows for the most acceptance, but what about the image of the black male thug that has been produced by society as a result of continuing cycles of poverty and mass incarceration? Or what about the fact that slavery was inherently tied to the capitalist drive for unregulated labor? Or the commodification of various identity politics movements by capitalism? Or the production of the ideal body image of women by clothing companies? There are many example of how a purely capitalist society does not create acceptance. However, it's not even a question of acceptance anymore as the way oppression is manifested nowadays is in societal structures, which capitalism alters in such a way that people experience lots of hard times, most of which are linked to poverty. Now, let's look at Scandinavian countries. They have what most would consider to be a socialist economy, yet they do not have high tensions with other countries, they don't have a lot of corruption, and they have one of the highest happiness rates in the world. There's your proof in the pudding. It also disproves your tribalism hypothesis since Scandinavia was pretty much the origin of tribalist conquest, with the Vikings a long time ago.



The very fact that you recognize these as problems is an indicator of how far we've come. I'm not going to argue that these things are good by any means, but through gradual change things have improved a lot.

As to the Vikings and Scandinavian countries: first, I think that saying that the Vikings originated tribalism is just simply not true. The Vikings were active around 1300-1000 years ago, roughly the time that Mohammed and early Muslims were conquering the Middle East, and long after the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Israelites, and early Chinese dynasties, to name a few, were doing the same thing. Scandinavia now is unique. You are correct that they have very stable, prosperous, and socialist culture. My brother and sister spent last fall in Denmark, and their observation was that "the only thing not homogenized in Denmark is the milk," by which they meant that people in a given country by and large come from very similar backgrounds, socially, economically, and genetically, and everyone understands that they are part of a larger whole. They mentioned specifically the health care system, which has functioned just fine for quite a while now, but that recent immigrants are putting a strain on the system. Not because there are more people, but because immigrants don't have the same sense that "if I go to the doctor for a stubbed toe, my friend across the street will pay for it." There is a sense of communal responsibility that is lacking in the United States, and probably in most places, that is necessary for socialism to function.



goodatthis said:


> E: Also, the communist countries today that people often reference (China, NoKo) are not communist. China is "communist" because it is technically led by the communist party, but they trade freely with other nations and have a booming capitalist economy. The reason why living conditions are bad in some areas of China is because of the huge amounts of production and capitalist exploitation that takes place, which is actually a result of capitalism, not communism. See, just another example of the subtle ways our perception is tainted by capitalist structures. And North Korea is really just fascism, I doubt there's a single thing in the Communist Manifesto that Kim Jong-un actually abides by.



I believe you are correct in estimating just how technically "communist" China and North Korea are, however the fact of the matter is that they still use Marxist rhetoric to justify their policies, and China at least did start out explicitly trying to implement a Marxist system. The system that is in place in China is corrupt, whatever it is, and it is certainly not properly regulated capitalism. Even with the problems, though, and there are many, there are not millions of people being killed, so I count that as better than when they were really trying to implement Marxism.



JustinTimeCuber said:


> Yes, communism in its pure form is simply an economic system. Neither communism nor capitalism has anything to do with gun ownership or gay rights.



You really can't separate things this cleanly. When the United States was fighting the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Whitaker Chambers wrote of communism in his autobiography _Witness_:

"It is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. . . . Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of man without God. . . . it has taken the logical next step which three hundred years of rationalism hesitated to take, and said what millions of modern minds think, but do not dare or care to say: If man's mind is the decisive force in the world, what need is there for God? Henceforth man's mind is man's fate."

You might dismiss him, as a fundamentalist nut, but I would point out that in the years after that it was well enough understood that we were a Christian nation fighting the godless communists that in 1954 the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance.


----------



## Chree (Jul 17, 2016)

I believe that, in philosophical discussion especially, talking semantics is a good thing. We sometimes have different models in our minds of the meaning behind certain concepts, so it's worth taking the time to outline what we mean when we say things.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> You might dismiss him, as a fundamentalist nut, but I would point out that in the years after that it was well enough understood that we were a Christian nation fighting the godless communists that in 1954 the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance.


We were never a "Christian nation". Under God needs to go. It's obviously unconstitutional.


goodatthis said:


> I think there's a relatively semantic distinction between things being connected and intrinsically connected. In a vacuum it could still be argued that capitalism has a social or political dimension to it, otherwise it would not be capitalism. Just like how a tree would not be a tree without soil and nutrients, saying capitalism is purely an economic system would be like saying a tree is just a bunch of wood: it's overly reductive.


But that is what capitalism is - it is an economic system. It doesn't come with anything else built in. A tree without soil and nutrients is still a tree. It's a soon-to-be dead tree, but still a tree. Likewise, capitalism works best with certain sociopolitical systems behind it, but without them, it still is capitalism, because the word in its purest sense just applies to economics.


goodatthis said:


> Also, as a side note, have you taken the political compass test? It doesn't take that long and I think it's pretty interesting, here's a link: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test It basically says where exactly you are on that chart, and although it may not be super accurate (it said I sided with a soft form of anarchism) I think it's still a decent insight into your political/economic views. I was about where the L in Left is for Libertarian Left, if not slightly more to the left and down.


Just did. I got -4.88 on the economic scale and -7.28 on the social scale. https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-4.88&soc=-7.28


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> We were never a "Christian nation". Under God needs to go. It's obviously unconstitutional.



We never were a Christian country in the sense that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country, but we have a strong tradition of Christianity and Judeo-Christian moral principles. Because "under God" is non sectarian I don't believe that it is obviously unconstitutional. If you want to get specific Marxism is unconstitutional too, so there's that.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> We never were a Christian country in the sense that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country, but we have a strong tradition of Christianity and Judeo-Christian moral principles. Because "under God" is non sectarian I don't believe that it is obviously unconstitutional. If you want to get specific Marxism is unconstitutional too, so there's that.


Let's put "Under no God" on our coins then and see how quickly the conservatives "change their mind" on whether or not that's unconstitutional...

The government isn't supposed to establish a religion. Seems clear enough. Saying that we are a nation "under God" seems like establishing a religion, albeit not a more specific religion. That would be like writing a law saying that we are a Christian nation, but since there are more specific religions in Christianity (Methodism, Catholicism, etc.) then it doesn't count. Yes, it counts.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Let's put "Under no God" on our coins then and see how quickly the conservatives "change their mind" on whether or not that's unconstitutional...



There are lots of conceptions of God, and "under God" is generic, and contrary to none of them. "Under no God" is specific, like putting "under Allah" on a coin.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> There are lots of conceptions of God, and "under God" is generic, and contrary to none of them. "Under no God" is specific, like putting "under Allah" on a coin.


Doesn't matter, because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, no matter how generic the language.
Instead of theocracy we can have theocracy-lite. Sounds better?


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Doesn't matter, because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, no matter how generic the language.
> Instead of theocracy we can have theocracy-lite. Sounds better?



Separation of church and state is not quite that. We don't have a creed or a state sanctioned religious organization, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing something that is believed with salutary effects by a large number of people as a valid belief.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Separation of church and state is not quite that. We don't have a creed or a state sanctioned religious organization, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing something that is believed with salutary effects by a large number of people as a valid belief.


Our nation is not under God. We were formed, among other reasons, because our founding fathers believed in the idea of secularism. What if the government made a law saying that everyone has to go to a place of worship once a week. It doesn't say "Church", "Mosque", "Temple" or anything specific, but just a "place of worship". In your mind, would that not be unconstitutional? We the irreligious believe so.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Our nation is not under God. We were formed, among other reasons, because our founding fathers believed in the idea of secularism. What if the government made a law saying that everyone has to go to a place of worship once a week. It doesn't say "Church", "Mosque", "Temple" or anything specific, but just a "place of worship". In your mind, would that not be unconstitutional? We the irreligious believe so.



There is a huge difference between secularism and atheism. Secularism means that we don't specify what religion you do or don't subscribe to. Political Atheism means that we can't recognize religion as a political force. I would not support a law requiring religious observance. One way in which we are a Christian nation is that the separation of church and state are built into Christianity. Not to say that Christianity has not been used for political purposes, but if you read the gospels everyone expected Jesus to be a political figure but he refused on multiple occasions, unlike for example, Mohammed who was an explicitly political character.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Capitalism isn't perfect, and I haven't seen anyone on here advocating a pure libertarian economic system, which is what you are describing as capitalism. There is an idea called The Tragedy of the Commons that says where there is a shared resource (in the original example a pasture) but an individual benefit from using it (originally grazing individually owned animals on it) it will tend to be overused to the point that it is useless to everyone. This concept can and has been expanded to consider all of earth's natural resources as a Commons, the idea being that if I dump pollution into the air I benefit more from getting rid of waste cheaply than I am hurt, because the benefit is concentrated but everyone on earth suffers, so the negative effect is spread out. The proper role of government in economics, in my opinion, is to prevent this kind of thing. It will be a never-ending debate as to what exactly that looks like, but that's ok. There are limits to capitalism, and a good government will regulate to some extent, but it is true that when people are acting in their own best interest they work harder and more effectively than they do if they are just working because that's what you do. We're selfish that way.


Look I understand everything you're saying about communistic style economies being bad, but that's simply not what I'm advocating. I say that capitalism needs to be regulated (not that everything should be shared) so it cannot oppress people, and the fact that capitalism is imperfect doesn't mean there's not a better alternative. As for your argument regarding selfishness, there's two problems: First, it begs the question of why more productivity is necessarily good, and second, your argument is true on an individual level but when corporations (which have much more power that individuals) are more productive, that directly contributes to poverty and oppression. Plus, regulation is not some inherently bad thing that restricts one's ability to work harder, rather, it simply restricts people or corporations' abilities to go too far and oppress people.


One Wheel said:


> The very fact that you recognize these as problems is an indicator of how far we've come. I'm not going to argue that these things are good by any means, but through gradual change things have improved a lot.
> 
> As to the Vikings and Scandinavian countries: first, I think that saying that the Vikings originated tribalism is just simply not true. The Vikings were active around 1300-1000 years ago, roughly the time that Mohammed and early Muslims were conquering the Middle East, and long after the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Israelites, and early Chinese dynasties, to name a few, were doing the same thing. Scandinavia now is unique. You are correct that they have very stable, prosperous, and socialist culture. My brother and sister spent last fall in Denmark, and their observation was that "the only thing not homogenized in Denmark is the milk," by which they meant that people in a given country by and large come from very similar backgrounds, socially, economically, and genetically, and everyone understands that they are part of a larger whole. They mentioned specifically the health care system, which has functioned just fine for quite a while now, but that recent immigrants are putting a strain on the system. Not because there are more people, but because immigrants don't have the same sense that "if I go to the doctor for a stubbed toe, my friend across the street will pay for it." There is a sense of communal responsibility that is lacking in the United States, and probably in most places, that is necessary for socialism to function.


I'll agree that they weren't the origin of tribalism. Now regarding the state of affairs in Scandinavian countries, I want to distinguish between two types of oppressions that capitalism creates: one relates to identity (race, sex, gender identity, sexuality, disability, etc) and the other relates to class. The way I see it, capitalism _indirectly _causes the first form of oppression, and it _directly _causes the second. The reason why capitalism can create the first form of oppression is not because it's a literal product of it, but rather, capitalist structures facilitate that type of oppression. In a homogenized nation, we don't see this problem all that often, but in capitalist countries that are diverse we do, such as the UK or the US. The way this is distinct from directly causing classist oppression is that white people aren't suddenly discriminated against in a mostly white society because they're white, but society does become stratified by class and the lower classes experience oppression. Most of the examples I gave for why capitalism causes oppression related to identity make sense under this conceptualization, since things related to class are usually how people are able to form prejudicial attitudes, such as the example I gave regarding black male stereotypes and also the fear that immigrants are taking our jobs. Now the reason why I only mentioned race is because Scandinavian countries are homogenized in terms of race and culture, but not other forms of identity. This is perhaps the main reason why I disagree with you on your idea that homogenization is the reason they have no problems. I've already explained how racial oppression is facilitated by capitalism (although remember I never said it's the only cause), but if your argument is true, then why does Scandinavia consistently have lower rates of discrimination based on sex, gender identity, sexuality, or disability? It's because capitalism a) causes class oppression which is responsible for oppression/negative views towards other minorities (especially race) and b) facilitates those other forms of oppression through things like commodification of social movements. That's one thing socialism doesn't do and is perhaps the best explanation of why capitalist countries have more discrimination based on those things. Capitalism takes identity politics and turns it into something profitable (or excludes/rallies against it, such as with the media deciding not to listen to social movements or rallying against it, such as with Fox New's blue lives matter stuff), and in order to be profitable those things need to appeal to the masses. If a problem exists among the masses, making it appeal to them is not the way to go. For example, Caitlyn Jenner, while admirable, has definitely commodified trans identity and used hers as a way to make money. 


One Wheel said:


> I believe you are correct in estimating just how technically "communist" China and North Korea are, however the fact of the matter is that they still use Marxist rhetoric to justify their policies, and China at least did start out explicitly trying to implement a Marxist system. The system that is in place in China is corrupt, whatever it is, and it is certainly not properly regulated capitalism. Even with the problems, though, and there are many, there are not millions of people being killed, so I count that as better than when they were really trying to implement Marxism.


This is less of a problem with Marxism and more of a problem with power and most likely never reading Marx himself. I've made my point clear enough, and I'm not sure whether you're just trying to say marxism is bad or that china is bad, but I think what I've said is sufficient to prove that marxism is not like you or those dictators say it is.


One Wheel said:


> You really can't separate things this cleanly. When the United States was fighting the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Whitaker Chambers wrote of communism in his autobiography _Witness_:
> 
> "It is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. . . . Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of man without God. . . . it has taken the logical next step which three hundred years of rationalism hesitated to take, and said what millions of modern minds think, but do not dare or care to say: If man's mind is the decisive force in the world, what need is there for God? Henceforth man's mind is man's fate."
> 
> You might dismiss him, as a fundamentalist nut, but I would point out that in the years after that it was well enough understood that we were a Christian nation fighting the godless communists that in 1954 the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance.


Do you know where the idea of the "godless communists" came from? It came from people such as Joe Mccarthy who helped add to the Red Scare. This is a perfect example of America twisting people's perceptions of things so as to further their own political interests. In fact, communists are probably more in tune with god than capitalists, since it's all about being one as part of a social collective where everything is shared and there is no stealing or exploitation, and I'm pretty sure god supports a society that's similar to that. Either way, I think there are better models of society than communism anyway, so this doesnt matter in the end.

Also, can I just ask (for the purposes of a more informed debate) what your exact argument/stance is? I'm confused because I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to prove communism is bad, or capitalism is good, or democratic socialism is bad, or what.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

The government is supposed to have nothing to do with religion. God was mentioned 0 times in the Constitution. Putting "In God we trust" on my money is discrimination. In God you trust, but making me carry something that says we trust in God is wrong. I don't care if it isn't specific, it infringes on my first amendment right to not practice religion. It says I believe in God whether I like it or not. That is not OK.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Jul 17, 2016)

Can someone please change the title of this thread to 'Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition'.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> The government is supposed to have nothing to do with religion. God was mentioned 0 times in the Constitution. Putting "In God we trust" on my money is discrimination. In God you trust, but making me carry something that says we trust in God is wrong. I don't care if it isn't specific, it infringes on my first amendment right to not practice religion. It says I believe in God whether I like it or not. That is not OK.


Define "God", "discrimination" and how is it actually harming you?

Feel free to rub off all the coins you find but I think that the fact you still have pennies is a bigger problem for the US.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 17, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Define "God".


Not real
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNAP


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 17, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Not real
> OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNAP


So does it matter?

Perhaps you could interpret your coinage as "we trust that there is no God".

Plus as mentioned before how about you deal with sone slightly larger issues that the US has such as how you have more houses than homeless and still use pennies rather than whining about point which really don't matter as I don't think anyone actually bothers reading coinage.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 17, 2016)

@goodatthis That's a lot of ink, and for the moment I'm not going to go through each point. On your last question, though, with regard to communism and capitalism I am convinced that Marxism, in particular, is bad, and democratic socialism can work in certain cases (Scandinavia) but I don't believe that it could ever be even close to a sustainable system in the United States.

@JustinTimeCuber Carrying money that says "In God we trust" is not practicing religion. Objecting to that could be construed as practicing religion. It is saying that we, as a country, trust in God. I am a farmer, and farmers grow soybeans. Therefore when I talk about myself as a member of the group of people known as farmers, I can say "we grow soybeans" even though I never have grown soybeans and never intend to do so. If someone were to tell me that I grow soybeans, I could correct them, and it wouldn't be a problem. And finally, if "God" is defined as "not real" then what do you care? Would it bother you if, say, this happened?


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 17, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Define "God", "discrimination" and how is it actually harming you?
> 
> Feel free to rub off all the coins you find but I think that the fact you still have pennies is a bigger problem for the US.


First, and this is just a pet peeve of mine, but when people ask for definitions of words and concepts they clearly understand solely as a (bad) debate tactic it's annoying. You know what God is, and you know what discrimination is. A better question might be "how does that create discrimination"

Second, I think the point Justin is trying to make is that putting things like "in god we trust" on money is an example of inscribing Christianity into public life, which should not be done considering there are many other religions. However, I do agree that it probably doesn't personally harm him, but it definitely has implications for groups that are negatively affected by what people interpret to be Christian values, such as LGBTQ people or people of other religions. The whole point is that glorifying Christianity as the religion of America by putting it on currency or in other places is the problem, as it certainly negatively affects people. (for example most arguments against gay marriage or abortion rights are religious in origin, and those arguments no doubt have harmful impacts on groups affected by those things, as well as the fact that the KKK, while being incorrect and not actually being good christians, ties american identity to the religious ideals that influence their white supremacy)


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 18, 2016)

goodatthis said:


> First, and this is just a pet peeve of mine, but when people ask for definitions of words and concepts they clearly understand solely as a (bad) debate tactic it's annoying. You know what God is, and you know what discrimination is. A better question might be "how does that create discrimination"
> 
> Second, I think the point Justin is trying to make is that putting things like "in god we trust" on money is an example of inscribing Christianity into public life, which should not be done considering there are many other religions. However, I do agree that it probably doesn't personally harm him, but it definitely has implications for groups that are negatively affected by what people interpret to be Christian values, such as LGBTQ people or people of other religions. The whole point is that glorifying Christianity as the religion of America by putting it on currency or in other places is the problem, as it certainly negatively affects people. (for example most arguments against gay marriage or abortion rights are religious in origin, and those arguments no doubt have harmful impacts on groups affected by those things, as well as the fact that the KKK, while being incorrect and not actually being good christians, ties american identity to the religious ideals that influence their white supremacy)



I understand "in God we trust" connecting the United States to monotheism, but I'm not convinced that it must be specifically Christianity. Even if it is, though, most of the founders and early leaders of this country were Christians or at the very least subscribed to Christian morality (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind). On that basis "in God we trust" is acceptable simply as a historic relic. 

As to people being harmed, my Christian faith tells me that I need to love and accept everyone, but I don't have to love and accept what they do. It's incredibly frustrating when someone chooses to be defined by what they do, but I am nevertheless obligated to treat each person with the respect due a precious child of God made in his image. That extends to unborn children as much as it does to LGBTQ people and serial killers. If that hurts anyone I'm sorry, and I will do what I can to ease their suffering, but I'm not going to compromise and I'm not going to condone what I understand to be sin. Does that help explain modern conservative Christian political positions?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 18, 2016)

We shouldn't establish any form of religion. We shouldn't have pennies. We definitely shouldn't have religion on pennies. I guess we should call ourselves a white person nation too, because we are majority white? Just because we are majority religious doesn't mean that we are a religious nation.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 18, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I understand "in God we trust" connecting the United States to monotheism, but I'm not convinced that it must be specifically Christianity. Even if it is, though, most of the founders and early leaders of this country were Christians or at the very least subscribed to Christian morality (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind). On that basis "in God we trust" is acceptable simply as a historic relic.
> 
> As to people being harmed, my Christian faith tells me that I need to love and accept everyone, but I don't have to love and accept what they do. It's incredibly frustrating when someone chooses to be defined by what they do, but I am nevertheless obligated to treat each person with the respect due a precious child of God made in his image. That extends to unborn children as much as it does to LGBTQ people and serial killers. If that hurts anyone I'm sorry, and I will do what I can to ease their suffering, but I'm not going to compromise and I'm not going to condone what I understand to be sin. Does that help explain modern conservative Christian political positions?


I understand your viewpoint, but in my (atheist/agnostic social justice conscious) eyes that's just an example of a contradiction in Christianity. There's not a lot of cases where what someone does isn't somehow identity-defining, which makes "accept everyone, but not necessarily what they do" to be a difficult rule to follow. It's also why fundementalists are able to misinterpret the Bible and use it for hateful purposes, such in the case of anti-LGBT groups or the KKK. For example, I know the bible condemns homosexual sex as well as being trans, but both being trans and being gay/lesbian/bi are natural predispositions (so thus you should accept them for who they are), but according to the Bible they should remain abstinent (in the case of homosexual sex) and never embrace their true identity (in the case of being trans). I understand that Christianity can do a lot of good but I think the rigid rules that are in place that often contradict themselves can lead to bigotry, so in my mind it's better to do what seems intuitively morally right (accept people and what they do) than listen to the strict teachings of a Bible that's been altered and translated and transcribed so many times that (existence of god aside) it's probably not what god originally intended it to be. In the end, what's a greater sin, bigotry, hate and violence, or allowing people to embrace their identity? The way I see it, a few lines in the Bible don't give a strong enough reason against certain things which are permissible by other moral codes, especially when the only argument the Bible makes in favor of following them is that it came from God.

By the way, I know that you probably aren't a bigot or are hateful towards LGBT people, but the point is that people often take it too far and a classification of homosexuality or being trans as sin is just as dehumanizing as regarding slaves or jews as animals, which always leads to violence and is why gay bashings occur and society as a whole is fairly homophobic.

E: Sorry for always typing up such long paragraphs, succinctness is dead in the modern educational system anyway!


----------

