Worst Famous Philosopher in History

  • Thread starter Entropia
  • Start date
  • #26
3,762
2
Originally posted by kyleb
i agree on Descartes; however, i don't see how you can say that a man who claimed he knew nothing was wrong.


oh, and i probably will get some complaints on this; but in my opinion Nitche was rather loopy as well.
Well, a person who claims that he knows nothing is, without a doubt, wrong. It is not possible to claim anything, without first knowing how to claim.
 
  • #27
RageSk8
Anyway, what I said was that to apply Marx's philosophy means to go against human nature (at least, as we understand it now).
Except not.... Take the !Kung of Africa (or, rather, take the !Kung 50 years ago) - total redistribuation of wealth, no definite hierrarchy (except that edlers were respected), and NO PRESTIGE. In other words, when a !Kung would bring back a big kill, he would get no recognization for his work, no extra food, no benefit beyond what everyone else in the tribe got. Helps to know anthropology... Not that I am a Marxist... Dialectical history is BS.
 
  • #28
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Originally posted by RageSk8
Except not.... Take the !Kung of Africa (or, rather, take the !Kung 50 years ago) - total redistribuation of wealth, no definite hierrarchy (except that edlers were respected), and NO PRESTIGE. In other words, when a !Kung would bring back a big kill, he would get no recognization for his work, no extra food, no benefit beyond what everyone else in the tribe got. Helps to know anthropology... Not that I am a Marxist... Dialectical history is BS.
I know it's dated, but I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs still has relevance to discussions like this. Applying it to the !Kung . . .

In a tribal setting survival is often a pretty all-consuming job so, putting it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy, when it is difficult to get past that bottom level of survival, issues like self actualization take a back seat.

Yet there can be great personal rewards in a tribal setting because of the intimacy of it. Lots of friends, membership in the group, the sense of power one gets when part of that group (similar to what attracts some people to gangs) . . . all are personally rewarding. Compare that to how one can be an invisible nothing in modern societies (or a business).
 
  • #29
1,944
0
Marx was no more or less a man of his time than any of us. He lived in a time when knowledge about production was very limited and the dominant view of the paradox of existence was extremely mechanistic. He did what came naturally, he extrapolated a mechanistic view of the world and the future of politics. That is what mechanistic views do, they make predictions. His just happened to have serious political implications.

You could say the same thing about Augustine and any number of rational western philosophers. It seems comical to me that what people are describing here as the best and worst philosophers overwhelmingly fall into two catagories:

1) Destructive

2) Counterproductive

Augustine, Marx, and others may have caused as much damage to society as anyone, but they also arguably advanced society. From my own point of view, stirring the pot is how you often make advancements. Nothing comes cheap or free except self-delusion.
 
  • #30
RageSk8
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I know it's dated, but I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs still has relevance to discussions like this. Applying it to the !Kung . . .

In a tribal setting survival is often a pretty all-consuming job so, putting it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy, when it is difficult to get past that bottom level of survival, issues like self actualization take a back seat.

Yet there can be great personal rewards in a tribal setting because of the intimacy of it. Lots of friends, membership in the group, the sense of power one gets when part of that group (similar to what attracts some people to gangs) . . . all are personally rewarding. Compare that to how one can be an invisible nothing in modern societies (or a business).
How I hate "all consuming" definitions. Philosophically, now that mysticism has been swept aside by naturalistic metaphors, the whole notion of "a human nature" is utterly useless. All theories attempt to give meaning to the impossible - the whole, the absolute.

To barrow an argument from Wittgenstein, it does not make sense to talk about the world, it only makes sense to talk about entities or relations in the world. Donald Davidson says much the same but with the metaphor of organizing a closet. The meta-picture can only be defined by its micro-elements. Because of this, "human nature" must simply, and broadly, be defined as any set of behaviors humans have, will, and do exhibit.

This "selfish gene" slant of yours can not escape the constraints of describing content. Your "selfish gene", just like Nietzsche’s "will to power", Rousseau's "noble savage", Hobbes' "corrupted spirit", Foucault's "power-knowledge relation", and, of course, Marx's "material dialect of classes", is of no use outside of demonstrating a basic concept or pattern.

You have to shape, construe any behavior seemingly aberrant to your predetermined epistemology, limiting truth and loosing any pragmatic force. It is not that hard to give content a redescription - the question is whether that redescription is of any use. Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening – to barrow an analogy from Wittgenstein – as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
3,762
2
Originally posted by RageSk8
How I hate "all consuming" definitions. Philosophically, now that mysticism has been swept aside by naturalistic metaphors, the whole notion of "a human nature" is utterly useless. All theories attempt to give meaning to the impossible - the whole, the absolute.

To barrow an argument from Wittgenstein, it does not make sense to talk about the world, it only makes sense to talk about entities or relations in the world. Donald Davidson says much the same but with the metaphor of organizing a closet. the meta-picture can only be defined by its micro-elements. Because of this, "human nature" must simply, and broadly, be defined as any set of behaviors humans have, will, and do exhibit.

This "selfish gene" slant of yours can not escape the constraints of describing content. The "selfish gene", just like Nietzsche’s "will to power", Rousseau's "noble savage", Hobbes' "corrupted spirit", Foucault's "power-knowledge relation", and, of course, Marx's "material dialect of classes", is of no use outside of demonstrating a basic concept or pattern.

You have to shape, construe any behavior seemingly aberrant to your predetermined epistemology, limiting truth and loosing any pragmatic use. It is not that hard to content a redescription - the question is if it is of any use. Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening – to barrow an analogy from Wittgenstein – as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.
Very interesting.
 
  • #32
kyleb
Originally posted by N_Quire
Kyleb, I would guess that you would dislike Nietzsche. I suppose somone who writes a book called "The Antichrist" is not going to be one of your favorites. I don't defend the political uses of his work by extremists but I do admire his philosophy and critique of christianity.
i don't think you realize this so i will make it clear; i am not a christian.


Originally posted by Mentat
Well, a person who claims that he knows nothing is, without a doubt, wrong. It is not possible to claim anything, without first knowing how to claim.
i always took it to mean that while he had opinion and ideas, he did not claim to be ceartin of anything. i find that far from wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Originally posted by RageSk8
How I hate "all consuming" definitions. Philosophically, now that mysticism has been swept aside by naturalistic metaphors, the whole notion of "a human nature" is utterly useless. All theories attempt to give meaning to the impossible - the whole, the absolute.
First of all, you shouldn’t hate. Second, you need to talk to me, instead of your own mind. I say that because you seem outraged, and I can’t figure out why. I don’t think I insulted you by anything I said. It doesn’t seem to me that you responded to a single thing I said (e.g. exactly what all-consuming definition did I cite?). Still, now that you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, let’s get it on.

So, you are joining the ranks of those who “sweep aside” that which they neither are knowledgeable about nor understand? When someone dismisses something they don’t understand, it is usually because it interferes with their objectives of proving they are right. If you can unceremoniously discredit something, then you don’t have to make your case by evidence. Philosophers dismiss mysticism, mystics dismiss philosophers . . . what is the difference? In either case it is a dubious debating tactic and not worthy of anyone genuinely in search of truth.

Why don’t we just stick to science to decide this question of whether or not humans have a “nature”?

Have we evolved? Have we evolved adapting to conditions? Have not those conditions shaped the way we evolved? Are we subject to our physiology? Do you think you can just take a human being and get him/her to adjust to any conditions and still maintain health? If you think that, then start listing evidence please. And not from philosophers either . . . let’s have some science.

Originally posted by RageSk8
To barrow an argument from Wittgenstein, it does not make sense to talk about the world, it only makes sense to talk about entities or relations in the world. Donald Davidson says much the same but with the metaphor of organizing a closet. The meta-picture can only be defined by its micro-elements. Because of this, "human nature" must simply, and broadly, be defined as any set of behaviors humans have, will, and do exhibit.
If you quoted the Bible I would be equally unimpressed. Because someone is published doesn’t mean they are right; likewise, because someone has a following doesn’t make them right. What do YOU see when you observe reality, what have YOU concluded from your personal life experiences. That interests me, not guys who can’t explain themselves now.

Originally posted by RageSk8
This "selfish gene" slant of yours can not escape the constraints of describing content. Your "selfish gene", just like Nietzsche’s "will to power", Rousseau's "noble savage", Hobbes' "corrupted spirit", Foucault's "power-knowledge relation", and, of course, Marx's "material dialect of classes", is of no use outside of demonstrating a basic concept or pattern.
What selfish gene are you suggesting I have talked about? I have neither said nor implied anything “selfish.” By nature I am talking evolution and any other influences that have shaped us. We are not able to be just any old way we decide to be without consequences. Some conditions help humans thrive, other conditions damage us. If we have not a nature, then how can that be?

But if you want to insist we don’t have needs, give me total control of your life for a few weeks, and I will show you just how needy you are.

Originally posted by RageSk8
You have to shape, construe any behavior seemingly aberrant to your predetermined epistemology, limiting truth and loosing any pragmatic force. It is not that hard to give content a redescription - the question is whether that redescription is of any use. Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening – to barrow an analogy from Wittgenstein – as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.
I would love to hear you explain this: “Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening . . . as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.” Have you studied tribal anthropology versus the values that develop in non-tribal, modern, technologically-driven societies? Demonstrate in one single way (evidence please) that I have misconstrued facts to support some epistemology you’ve imagined I embrace. I will tell you plain and simple the basis of my epistemology: experience and know. That’s it. What about you? The vast majority of stuff you toss out you have never experienced. I think you are just infatuated by complicated thinkers. There is no difference in blind faith in mysticism, the Bible, the existentialists, empiricism, and anything else. Blind faith is blind faith . . . mouthing of other people’s ideas sans personal experience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ChomskyLies
  • #34
In consideration of my first answer, I would like to "nominate the candidate" for Worst Philosopher, (of the 21 st century)

George "Dub'ya" Bush. (Insert uproarious applause!)
 
  • #35
RageSk8
Note: I must apologize for the tone of my post - it is condesending and doesn't have the integrity it should. But, to make at least some excuses, I really have no better way to express my frustration at, what I see at least, as irrational banter that tries to claim a ground (the ground of science) that it doesn't even approach.

First of all, you shouldn’t hate. Second, you need to talk to me, not your own mind. I say that because you seem outraged, and I can’t figure out why. I don’t think I insulted you by anything I said. So honestly, I don’t know what you are talking about. It doesn’t seem to me that you responded to a single thing I said (e.g. exactly what all-consuming definition did I cite?). Still, now that you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, let’s get it on.
Well, I didn’t hate really… I guess I came off a bit harsh… due to the absurdity of your posts…

So, you are joining the ranks of those who “sweep aside” that which they neither are knowledgeable about nor understand? When someone dismisses something they don’t understand, it is usually because it interferes with their objectives of proving they are right. If you can unceremoniously discredit something, then you don’t have to make your case by evidence. Philosophers dismiss mysticism, mystics dismiss philosophers . . . what is the difference? In either case it is a dubious debating tactic and not worthy of anyone genuinely in search of truth.
Well, I am actually not in search of truth; I am in search of causal relationships. Science has proven to be the best at unveiling causal relationships in “physical terms”. So, yes, let’s talk science. The philosophy I brought up is relevant to this topic, but sense you seem heart set on leaving philosophy (at least the names of philosophers) out of this debate, so be it. Silly me, for a second I thought I was posting on a philosophy forum…

Why don’t we just stick to science to decide this question of whether or not humans have a “nature”?
That wasn’t my point. You really need to read my posts more closely. I was not talking about patterns in human behavior (even archetypal patterns) they are there. I was commenting on your use of a “kill all” thesis for human nature. Because such a meta-theory about human nature has to explain all of human behavior, a meaningful context is impossible. This is what you gave with the !Kung – it amounted to dribble. What do you want? A cookie for molding a description to a predefined vocabulary? What kind of science do you conceive of?

ht. What do YOU see when you observe reality, what have YOU concluded from your personal life experiences. That interests me, not guys who can’t explain themselves now.
Well seeing that our thoughts, beliefs, and logic are amalgamations of our experiences, who we have read and talked, I don’t find paraphrasing dead (or in Davidson’s case just really old) intellectuals as an invalid form of debate… Unless you think your thoughts are transcendent over the contingency of thought and history…

What selfish gene are you suggesting I have talked about? I have neither said nor implied anything “selfish.” By nature I am talking evolution and any other influences that have shaped us. We are not able to be just any old way we decide to be without consequences. Some conditions help humans thrive, other conditions damage us. If we have not a nature, then how can that be?
Everything you have said parallels a bad interpretation of Dawkin’s “selfish” gene that is the popular metaphor in sociobiology today. More or less, replace “selfish gene” in my posts for “an illogical adherence to the functionalists (classical anthropological functionalists) characterization of culture as relating to individual benefit.” In other words, sorry but you were unfamiliar with current terminology.

I would love to hear you explain this: “Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening . . . as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.” Have you studied tribal anthropology versus the values that develop in non-tribal, modern, technologically-driven societies? Demonstrate in one single way (evidence please) that I have misconstrued facts to support some epistemology you’ve imagined I embrace. I will tell you plain and simple the basis of my epistemology: experience and know. That’s it. What about you? The vast majority of stuff you toss out you have never experienced. I think you are just infatuated by complicated thinkers. There is no difference in blind faith in mysticism, the Bible, the existentialists, empiricism, and anything else. Blind faith is blind faith . . . mouthing of other people’s ideas sans personal experience.
Blind faith? Jesus Christ…All you did was describe the !Kung by a preset interpretation of individual gain and necessity Your post was meaningless. Richard Feynman (physicist if you didn’t know) said a scientific theory had to do two things: 1. Accurately describe events 2. Point to outside areas with empirically testable conclusions (by said description of course) Anyone who has a layman conception of the scientific method would agree with Feynman. Now, where in anything that you posted was the second stipulation fulfilled? It wasn’t – not at all, not in any stretch. Again, all you did so far is take what I said about the !Kung and try to fit it to your conception of evolution and culture (and a very bad one at that). How is that scientific? You end up "comparing a newspaper with a copy of the same paper" by merely redescribing the !Kung in a different vocabulary that could draw no performative (be it scientific or meaningful) distinction from my origional description! There is no useful outcome, no differentiation found in your description of the !Kung.

You talk a lot about science, but you never quote studies that based upon a series of empirical tests arrived at by exclusion your stance. Never. This is because your stance isn’t scientific in the least. It is just one big faith based non sequitur leap. Science (ideally) never asserts a “fact” unless that fact was extrapolated through extensive empirical falsification. It is not impressive that you can redescribe the !Kung in your own terms – any idiot could. One could describe the !Kung in the vocabulary of “New Age” lets-pop-acid-and-talk-to-trees metaphysics and would be equally “correct.” A description is a description; it is hard to fail to communicate when talking within a shared vocabulary. A scientific theory does more – it is the result of forming a description (the easy part, what you did and any moron could) and then following a series of empirical tests of events outside of the original description until a predictive, useful theory is formed. So, where is the science?

Ps – I have studied modern vs. traditional anthropology. I am just perplexed how you believe (in any rational sense at all) that a crappy – yes, crappy - model of hierarchy enlightens anything. If you mean to say that communism could not work in this multinational market, than I agree. But that has absolutely nothing to do with “human nature” – at least not in any useful sense – and everything to do with cultural holism: Why Marxism couldn’t work “the way things are now” is due to the fact that “the way things are now” has been shaped (and has shaped the development of) capitalism. Everything is related – change one thing, especially something as major as a subsistence and socio-political system, and everything changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
3,762
2
Originally posted by kyleb
i don't think you realize this so i will make it clear; i am not a christian.




i always took it to mean that while he had opinion and ideas, he did not claim to be ceartin of anything. i find that far from wrong.
I understand. However, I do have to wonder, how is it that he is not certain of anything, and yet is certain of this fact (IOW, how can you be certain that you are not certain about anything), this is a self-contradictory/paradoxical concept.
 
  • #37
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Originally posted by RageSk8 Note: I must apologize for the tone of my post - it is condescending and doesn't have the integrity it should. But, to make at least some excuses . . . irrational banter . . . due to the absurdity of your posts . . . it amounted to dribble. What do you want? A cookie . . . any idiot could . . . what you did and any moron could . . . how you believe (in any rational sense at all) that a crappy – yes, crappy . . .
Well, I am certainly glad you finally got over that condescending thing.

Originally posted by RageSk8 That wasn’t my point. . . . I was commenting on your use of a “kill all” thesis for human nature. Because such a meta-theory about human nature has to explain all of human behavior, a meaningful context is impossible. . . . You talk a lot about science, but you never quote studies that based upon a series of empirical tests arrived at by exclusion your stance.
I think we need to review the history of our debate because you are arguing against points I never made. It was MY point originally that kicked off our debate, not yours, and so I maintain the right here to argue what I was trying to say, and not what you think I should be talking about. If you are having trouble sticking to the subject with your counterarguments, then you might consider revisiting Davidson, and possibly bone up on Quine too, for a little refresher logic lesson.

I did not use a “kill-all thesis” or “meta-theory” for human nature. I have no such theory other than that humans do indeed have traits, both physical and mental, built into them at birth. We are still discovering what it means to be human, so the story is continuing to unfold.

Do I really need to give you studies to prove that we have a nature? What makes us want freedom? Why does loving a child nurture better than hating a child? Why can’t we be healthy without vitamin C? Why do we seek to procreate? If we had no nature, then humans would be the “blank slate” as some have claimed, and should be able to adapt to any conditions.

Humans are hardwired with certain physical, emotional, and mental needs. We might be able to “survive” without some of these needs being met, but it is very difficult to maintain maximum health in their absence. Now exactly what meta-theory is that? All I have pointed out is what just about every researcher today is saying.

Originally posted by RageSk8 Everything you have said parallels a bad interpretation of Dawkin’s “selfish” gene that is the popular metaphor in sociobiology today. More or less, replace “selfish gene” in my posts for “an illogical adherence to the functionalists (classical anthropological functionalists) characterization of culture as relating to individual benefit.” In other words, sorry but you were unfamiliar with current terminology.
I am familiar with the terminology, but I don’t know why you would apply it to what I said. If I remember correctly his main point was that a gene for altruism wouldn’t be passed, and therefore whatever genetics there are which influence personality are most likely to be those which further self interest. What does that have to do with humans having physical, emotional, and mental needs? In any case, I am not talking about sociobiology or functionalists or selfishness.

My biology regularly “encourages” me to be intimate with my wife, and we are married (partly) to accommodate that drive in both of us. Society is designed to accommodate that as well, so does human nature shape society? I am feeling a need to see my friends? When I am with my friends, I’ve discovered that when I listen, conversations are more rewarding. When conversations are more rewarding, my friendships deepen. When my friendships deepen, my life is more enjoyable. So does human nature shape relationships? When I used to work in business I found I did better when my superiors treated me with respect. So has human nature shaped the work environment ?

You have to distinguish between selfish, and then real needs and enlightened self interest. Selfish would be if I pursue my own needs at the expense of others, thinking of no one but my self. Even though egocentric and insecure people do that, and may make gains in the short term, in the long term selfish behavior, ironically, is self destructive.

Originally posted by RageSk8 Again, all you did so far is take what I said about the !Kung and try to fit it to your conception of evolution and culture (and a very bad one at that). How is that scientific? You end up "comparing a newspaper with a copy of the same paper" by merely redescribing the !Kung in a different vocabulary that could draw no performative (be it scientific or meaningful) distinction from my original description! There is no useful outcome, no differentiation found in your description of the !Kung
.

I am starting to worry about you, and why you can’t see the very simple point I am making. I neither said nor implied any of what you discuss above, it is a phantom in your own brain with whom you are arguing.

It was you who decided to cite the !Kung as an exception to my example of how modern society has made practical use of our growing understanding of human nature. I simply pointed out that tribal culture, particularly hunter-gather types (i.e., who survive virtually from day to day), satisfy human inner needs (I meant primarily psychological needs) differently from large and complex societies.

Really, do I have to drag out my anthropology books to demonstrate just how dysfunctional populations become when individual needs aren’t met? I still remember one dramatic example of headhunters that we studied (South America, I believe) where murdering other tribes’ members was considered necessary to empower oneself. The children were ignored by both parents, and grew up utterly heartless and ready to murder.

Look at modern society too, and see how abused children fare compared to loved children. When we reach adulthood, we still thrive best in certain conditions, and languish in others. Do you dispute this?

Originally posted by RageSk8 I am just perplexed how you believe (in any rational sense at all) that a crappy – yes, crappy - model of hierarchy enlightens anything. If you mean to say that communism could not work in this multinational market, than I agree. But that has absolutely nothing to do with “human nature” – at least not in any useful sense – and everything to do with cultural holism: Why Marxism couldn’t work “the way things are now” is due to the fact that “the way things are now” has been shaped (and has shaped the development of) capitalism.
Your reasoning reminds me of how a computer might join together various intelligent ideas, but which have little relationship to each other. Who are you debating? Certainly not me. You might stop imposing your mentality on our discussion long enough to notice I have a point to make, and that it isn’t what you are talking about.

First of all, what you call “crappy” is a bit of existential psychology that in one form or another has not only often been applied successfully, but is also quite ordinary common sense. I know about its practical value because I have seen how powerful it can be to design an organization so that it encourages self actualization.

I say it is common sense because one can observe the need hierarchy concept in everyday life. If a tornado is bearing down on your house, are you more likely to be thinking about philosophical distinctions between operationalism and positivism, or how to save your ass? When you are well fed and safe, isn’t that when your mind is most apt to turn to intellectual pursuits? In hunter-gather situations, survival is the daily regimen. The spare time we afford ourselves through many layers of social specialization and technology is normally not available in primitive settings.

Now, returning to my original point, it was that in terms of a plan for a social-economic system, Marx didn’t seem to recognize what some modern industrial societies are starting to understand (it is a relatively recent understanding); and that is you can’t construct any system dependent on humans, and have it work maximally, without building elements into the system that accommodate human psychological needs. Even the military has incorporated this organizational development principle, and in fact is a big client of OD professionals.

You countered with the !Kung example.

I countered your example by pointing out that individual psychological needs can be met very nicely in small, cooperating groups because of how the intimacy, belonging, power of the group, importance to the whole tribe, etc. can all serve as wonderful psychological rewards for individuals. If you don’t think so, take a look at tribes who bully and dominate weaker members or where trust and camaraderie are low.

So I say my observations stem from my experience and reflection, and don’t deserve the contempt you've showed them.

As a postscript, I wonder what made you feel justified in unloading your ire. After all, all I did was make a counterpoint, and I did so politely and respectfully, while you came back seething contentions that didn’t bother address my arguments. With no other reason evident, I am left to conclude your indignation was derived from my challenge to your ideas; a narcissistic rage at the audacity of someone who dares defy what you believe is your awesome intellect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ChomskyLies
  • #38
3,762
2
Let's watch the personal remarks, please. I think that this debate is very interesting (though I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute), but it would be more interesting if there wasn't so much insulting dialouge.
 
  • #39
kyleb
Originally posted by Mentat
I understand. However, I do have to wonder, how is it that he is not certain of anything, and yet is certain of this fact (IOW, how can you be certain that you are not certain about anything), this is a self-contradictory/paradoxical concept.

well i don't think he claimed it to be a certainty, from what i understand the oracle at Delphi did. :wink:
 
  • #40
3,762
2
As far as the thread question goes, I'd like to change my answer. Socrates was very influencial, and one mistake doesn't make him the worst. From having recently read some of Nietzsche's work, I'd like to change my vote to: Nietzsche. Definitely the worst that I've ever read.
 
  • #41
RageSk8
You missed my points about a lot of things (biology, interpretation, human nature, etc..). I think the blame is both of ours, but hey, who cares. I forgot about this thread so i will try to cut across the extraneous areas of our debate and get this thing back on course.

Do I really need to give you studies to prove that we have a nature? What makes us want freedom? Why does loving a child nurture better than hating a child? Why can’t we be healthy without vitamin C? Why do we seek to procreate? If we had no nature, then humans would be the “blank slate” as some have claimed, and should be able to adapt to any conditions.
No. I never denied that we have archetypal biological structure that produces urges which lead to cross-cultural patterns. In fact, I believe I said " I was not talking about patterns in human behavior (even archetypal patterns) they are there.". So, all you just said, doesn't attack my position. What I am against is evolutionary psychology, you can read my view on this particular science in the thread Free Will. A Hoax?

Humans are hardwired with certain physical, emotional, and mental needs. We might be able to “survive” without some of these needs being met, but it is very difficult to maintain maximum health in their absence. Now exactly what meta-theory is that? All I have pointed out is what just about every researcher today is saying.
Yeah, that much is certain, but it is also certain that individuals in different cultures have radically different behavioral patterns to meet those needs.

It was you who decided to cite the !Kung as an exception to my example of how modern society has made practical use of our growing understanding of human nature. I simply pointed out that tribal culture, particularly hunter-gather types (i.e., who survive virtually from day to day), satisfy human inner needs (I meant primarily psychological needs) differently from large and complex societies.
You can't lump societies together so easily. Especially in modern societies, historical contigencies plays a huge role in social, psychological, and economic patterns. I understand that there are generalizations that can be made, but you are guilty of [/i]Post Hoc[/i] or Joint Effect logical errors. Namely, you conclude that because many modern societies have populations that can be described under certain psychological patterns, that modern societies will always have and can only exist with those psychological patterns. No good anthropologist would do that (if you are a functionalist, Edmond Leach wouldn't, if you are a evolutionist, Richard Lee wouldn't). What Leach and Lee would do is ask if they could exclude other alternatives, psychological patterns, and go from there. I would say that you could not exclude solidarity, ideological hegemony, perceived benefit (more important than real benefit often times, check your anthropological textbooks), and cultural ecology (yes, even modern societies are highly influenced by cultural ecology).

Now, returning to my original point, it was that in terms of a plan for a social-economic system, Marx didn’t seem to recognize what some modern industrial societies are starting to understand (it is a relatively recent understanding); and that is you can’t construct any system dependent on humans, and have it work maximally, without building elements into the system that accommodate human psychological needs. Even the military has incorporated this organizational development principle, and in fact is a big client of OD professionals.
Meh, too bad you don’t know history as well as anthropology…. The Paris Commune of the early 1870’s came close to Marxism (without the need for intellectuals). Newspapers around the world condemned this proletariat revolution. Long story short, the rest of Paris evacuated (many evacuated before the commune was set up and stable) because the German army was coming, Germany slaughters most of the Paris Commune, and finally, after Germany leaves (the won that war :wink:, France kills the rest of those Pink bastards. So, yeah, there have been modern successful modern attempts at a Marxist environment, war just killed any test of staying power.

There are, of course, religious communes working in a Modern society. The Shar have one in America that is very modernized, tv and all, with little economic stratification. There is, of course, a hierarchy, but the leader of the Shar lives as modestly as his followers. (there are many such organizations that show hierarchy but no economic stratification in modern sub-sects).

My main point is cultural holism – yeah, most societies today could not work under Marxism, but we are pretty damn malleable, and “modern” culture hasn’t existed so long. Marxism isn’t against organization in the least – it even allows hierarchies. Marxism, just like anarchy, is very much pro-organization. What it does require is free-association, economic equality, and the absence of prestige classes. Maybe you could explain why a “modern society’ requires psychological patterns dichotomous to Marxism?
 
  • #42
85
1
Originally posted by N_Quire
Whether their ideas supported Nazism or not, I don't think you can consider Heidegger and Nietzsche to be worst philosophers. These two are major philosophers who have had an impact way beyond the foolishness of their political ideas. Even such liberals/social democrats/radicals as Rorty and Derrida owe a huge intellectual debt to Heidegger and Nietzsche.
Nietzsche died a good while before the Nazi party came around, there was no connection but a horrible misapplication of his ideas.
 
  • Like
Likes ChomskyLies
  • #43
Paradox
Sartre. Waffle, at best.
 
  • #44
54
0
I would like to "nominate the candidate" for Worst Philosopher, (of the 21 st century)George dub'ya Bush [insert uproarious applause]
I agree.
 
Top