the neoliberal vision of the future

[littlebabyjesus]

The term social comes from latin and means "living together." Does a rapist and his victim "live together"? Is raper-rapist a social relationship? Is slave-master a social relationship? No. These are not social. If we look at the species which biologists typically term "social" (ants, antelopes) then what is their defining characteristic? Ants (in the same colony) don't kill each other. They don't eat each other. They don't use physical force against each other. In other words, they coexist PEACEFULLY. And that is the nature of sociality: peaceful coexistence. Violent, forceful behavior cannot be social. (In fact, in psychology it is called anti-social behavior)

Oh dear. You are overreaching yourself here. I'm afraid we must add biology to the list of subjects you know nothing about. Ants do not 'coexist peacefully'. An ant on its own will wander around aimlessly until it dies. Ants live in highly social hives in which all activity is performed, whether the ant knows it or not, for the greater good of the hive, including, if necessary, the ant laying down its life for the good of the hive.

Ants cannot exist without being part of a collective in which they perform tasks for the good of the collective. Humans are in fact more like ants than solitary animals. We don't last long on our own either.

One of the things you seem to be ignoring is the fact that where decisions are made collectively, that does not mean that the individual has no say. It simply means that the individual is only one of many that come together to make the collective decision.

 

[TruXta]

@ Santino: Reframing? Lying through your teeth? Delusion?

 

[TruXta]

"Humans aren't the only species that have had to deal with the issue of slavery. Some species of ants also abduct the young of others, forcing them into labouring for their new masters. These slave-making ants, like Protomagnathus americanus conduct violent raids on the nests of other species, killing all the adults and larva-napping the brood."

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/the_rebellion_of_the_ant_slaves.php

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Actually the defining feature of a grown-up is that he makes his OWN decisions.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. There is no defining feature; it's a contested social construct like childhood. This is just one example of the awful mess that your attempts to impose absolutist defining features gets you into; stop being so needy and demanding and you might gain something from these boards and have something to offer (beside a rather thin and uncomfortable comedic value).

Louis MacNeice

 

[Santino]

@ Santino: Reframing? Lying through your teeth? Delusion?

It's more than that. It involves a childish trust in existing words - a belief that all you need to do is get the right definition and the words in the right order and BANG, you have incontrovertible proof of, well, something.

You get a similar phenomenon when people talk about philosophical ideas for the first time, hunting around for the 'correct' definition of a concept as if that's all that philosophy is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is going to sound a bit patronising, but onan seems to have become hopelessly confused by the complexity and superficial alienation of modern society, in which the ways in which we cooperate and act collectively can be hidden from us. Any person living in a simpler society would instantly see the absurdity of everything he is saying and would be puzzled that such foolish notions can exist.

 

[butchersapron]

It's more than that. It involves a childish trust in existing words - a belief that all you need to do is get the right definition and the words in the right order and BANG, you have incontrovertible proof of, well, something.

It used to be called 'magic'.

 

[Santino]

It used to be called 'magic'.

Don't start that, you'll have dwyer in here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You get a similar phenomenon when people talk about philosophical ideas for the first time, hunting around for the 'correct' definition of a concept as if that's all that philosophy is.

Isn't it? Working out a precise shared meaning, seeing the ways in which you are using the terms differently from others and trying to come up with what you really mean?

What more is it? There are certainly plenty of examples of philosophers for whom this is philosophy – Wittgenstein, for instance.

 

[Santino]

I mean the simplistic way that some people talk about, say, freedom, as if there is a single, simple definition out there waiting to be discovered, rather than a multiplicity of different understandings that are based on context. Wittgenstein didn't believe in that kind of meaning, did he?

 

[onarchy]

Just in case anybody wondered:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/allodium

Allodium:

Freehold estate; land which is the absolute property of the owner; real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud. Sometimes used, in the Anglo-Saxon period, of land which was alienable and inheritable, even though held of a superior lord. Also written allod, alody.

"Feud" refers to the kind of property which dominated feudalism. Thus, you guys who claim that there can be no rights without duties are feudalists. To you serfdom is an integral and defining property of society. Wheras in the medieval times serfs owed their duty to their lords, modern serfs owe their duty to "the common good" and "society."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah, ok. No, that is just silly.

ETA:

Ona clearly isn't listening, though.

 

[Santino]

Just in case anybody wondered:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/allodium

Allodium:

Freehold estate; land which is the absolute property of the owner; real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud. Sometimes used, in the Anglo-Saxon period, of land which was alienable and inheritable, even though held of a superior lord. Also written allod, alody.

"Feud" refers to the kind of property which dominated feudalism. Thus, you guys who claim that there can be no rights without duties are feudalists. To you serfdom is an integral and defining property of society. Wheras in the medieval times serfs owed their duty to their lords, modern serfs owe their duty to "the common good" and "society."

Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

 

[TruXta]

Just in case anybody wondered:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/allodium

Allodium:

Freehold estate; land which is the absolute property of the owner; real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud. Sometimes used, in the Anglo-Saxon period, of land which was alienable and inheritable, even though held of a superior lord. Also written allod, alody.

"Feud" refers to the kind of property which dominated feudalism. Thus, you guys who claim that there can be no rights without duties are feudalists. To you serfdom is an integral and defining property of society. Wheras in the medieval times serfs owed their duty to their lords, modern serfs owe their duty to "the common good" and "society."

Are you even reading what the rest of us write? Explain to me how there can be rights if they aren't mutually recognised as such and acted on collectively. Then explain to me how this mutual recognition is not a duty.

 

[onarchy]

Rights cannot not come with duties, at minimum it comes with the duty of mututal recognition of "inalienable rights" or whatever rights are posited. Also you seem to think that individuals are atoms and that decision can be made in a social vacuum, which shows you know the square root of fuck all about psychology, or indeed people in general.

A duty is something that you are FORCED to do. Recognition of someone else's right does not require force. You can simply recognize it and then get on with your life. Military service is a duty. You are then FORCED to put your life and your plans on hold and FORCED to go into the military as a soldier. Most types of rights are of the kind that requires a reciprocal duty. A master's right to command his slaves requires reciprocal duty of the slave to obey his master. There is only one exception, namely the right to be independent, to self-ownership. This requires no duty on the part of others. You do not force them to do anything.

 

[TruXta]

A duty is something that you are FORCED to do. Recognition of someone else's right does not require force. You can simply recognize it and then get on with your life. Military service is a duty. You are then FORCED to put your life and your plans on hold and FORCED to go into the military as a soldier. Most types of rights are of the kind that requires a reciprocal duty. A master's right to command his slaves requires reciprocal duty of the slave to obey his master. There is only one exception, namely the right to be independent, to self-ownership. This requires no duty on the part of others. You do not force them to do anything.

You make it sound so we're all born with the best intentions, like little angels. What fucking bollocks. The right to independence and self-determination cannot be held without an active accomodation on the part of everyone else you interact with. If you don't accommodate these rights, you will be sanctioned, which most certainly involves some kind of force.

 

[Santino]

A duty is something that you are FORCED to do. Recognition of someone else's right does not require force. You can simply recognize it and then get on with your life. Military service is a duty. You are then FORCED to put your life and your plans on hold and FORCED to go into the military as a soldier. Most types of rights are of the kind that requires a reciprocal duty. A master's right to command his slaves requires reciprocal duty of the slave to obey his master. There is only one exception, namely the right to be independent, to self-ownership. This requires no duty on the part of others. You do not force them to do anything.

If I came round your house and took your stuff, you wouldn't be able to stop me, because that would entail FORCING me to recognise your right to own those things, which is something you refuse to do. What's your address please?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Any well-adjusted human actively welcomes the opportunity to act as part of a collective to perform all kinds of tasks. It's the only way we can survive. You have mistaken the alienation of modern society for independence. It isn't – it's merely a situation where the collective is failing the individual. None of us is independent. Humans simply aren't that kind of animal.

 

[Santino]

The very notion of individuality rests on being-with-others.

 

[onarchy]

If I came round your house and took your stuff, you wouldn't be able to stop me, because that would entail FORCING me to recognise your right to own those things, which is something you refuse to do. What's your address please?

How many normal, decent human beings experiences it as a drudge and a duty NOT to be able to rob their neighbors? Very, very few. Respecting other people's property and lives comes just as naturally to humans as gravity. Most people don't notice that they can't fly and that gravity is constantly pushing them to the ground, and they most certainly do NOT think of it as a duty to walk. Walking is just something we humans do. It's natural. The same is true of respecting others. Now, duty clearly doesn't mean things that come naturally to you. It means doing something despite the fact that you absolutely don't want to, and you only do them because you fear the consequences of not doing them.

 

[Santino]

 

[TruXta]

Oh snap! I was waiting for that bullshit about natural rights to come along.

 

[TruXta]

Shame that nut-job that kept going on about noble savages isn't around these days, he could've cuddled up to Onan for a wee circle-jerk.

 

[Crispy]

How many normal, decent human beings?

Depends on your particular preferences of normality and decency and also the particular circumstances. What would be highly abnormal indecent behaviour in some circumstances would be absolutely the right thing to do in other circumstances. The "rational individual" does not exist and cannot be relied upon to make the right choices, as evidenced by the spectacular failure of economics as a 'science'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I do have a lot of sympathy with you, Onan, for being conscripted.

However, you seem to be attempting to build an entire philosophy out of the fact that you object to conscription. There are other ways to object.

You appear to be very conflicted in your thinking.

 

[Idris2002]

Respecting other people's property and lives comes just as naturally to humans as gravity.

Ah, if only it were that simple.

 

[Idris2002]

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

..

 

[Louis MacNeice]

A duty is something that you are FORCED to do.

Sometimes by yourself and with a great sense of subsequent achievement. Again you are trying to force absolutists/exclusive meaning on to words in the belief that it will somehow win the argument and prove the truth. You really should try pushing your thinking a bit harder.

Louis MacNeice

 

[DotCommunist]

This is just a statement of fact. QUOTE]

No it isn't. It's the usual line of bollocks peddled by fantasists. Yor guns and bombs thing made me chuckle though. Cos capitalists use strongly worded SMS messages and mild frowns to prosecute their aims.