Hmmm, archytas. I've gone to Wikipedia and read the brief indulgence of Wittgenstein and have to admit, he's way over my head, but if I grasp him in even a small way it seems he is saying that if I think I understand what he says than I don't but if I fail to perceive him then I understand him perfectly.
As sarcastic as that may sound, I think I have a basic grasp of his approach to human society and philosophy. However I don't agree with him that modern systems try to appear that they explain everything. One of the brighter aspects of most modern systems is the mature acknowledgement that we don't know everything and are trying to understand what we discover as we progress. I think this is also true in the philosophical arena. Wittgenstein thought that his 'Tractatus' had solved all the problems of philosophy. He then turned around and recanted that position in his later writings. I do agree with his unstated hypothesis that there are many things beyond our ken -- the mystical -- which we are still far from understanding and grasping. But I do accept that he is considered to be one of the real geniuses in the world of philosophy. I just don't understand him all that well. But then again I've never really understood the intracacies and complexities of existential philosophy, preferring to craft my own simplistic form based on my experiences and insights into life as I've observed and lived it. >From all appearances, human beings have stepped outside the parameters which define and contain all other species. We have taken an enormous degree of control over our existence; far greater than any other species. Of course this mere fact offers no insight into the value of such deviation which may actually lead to destruction and even extinction. But that is moot per se since it's achievement likely preceeds awareness or is gained simultaneously. It seems only a forward movement enjoys awareness of achievement. To date we have survived with some sensibility and awareness intact which can be taken as a small measure of our achievement. On Jun 20, 4:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > It's always hard in a few lines Gruff. I don't believe in capitalism > in much the same way I don't believe in god/s. Like Hume, I'm > agnostic, believing only rationalist fantasy provides 'proof' in areas > like this, or an internalist account that puts one in a condition to > believe. Fair trade would not be a problem and nor is 'bumbling > along' with laws, government and countervailing institutions, though I > think the evidence here is that practice is shot through to the > extent we hardly ever get any evidence to work on. > Capitalism versus socialism always seemed a non-starter to me, given > the 'socialist experiments' vested capital in the State. Any kind of > substantial, scientific analysis would have looked for similarities > rather than rushing to a theoretical basis ahead of evidence. It is > the theoretical basis I cannot believe in and thus I'm no more a > believer in socialism as I am in capitalism. In the old Eastern Block > is was impossible even to discuss Wittgenstein openly, despite much > excellent scholarship, and fear of State intrusion was greater than we > have generally experienced. > Evidence is always spun to some extent and I think we need to keep to > something more basic than terms like capitalism - hence I agree > entirely that whatever we are trying to look at is a product of human > work, good,bad and indifferent. We take sides too quickly and rush to > knowledge actually without foundation, notably as you point out above > around the internal-external split. > One can make up all kinds of plausible stories, but one has to wonder > a lot of the time why there is any need. Despite knowing evidence is > difficult a lot of the time, my experience has generally been that the > evidence of wide experience and what would be crucial in a case is > often hidden, sometimes kept behind closed doors for insider trading > or competitive advantage. I would prefer more basic enquiry to > theoretical speculation on how we are going about living. The > undercover camera is often very revealing than editorial, and always > seems to present an account at considerable variance with official > reporting. I would like us to be able to work with more basic data > such as this. > > On 20 June, 04:37, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A comment: Revisiting George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in 2010 > > > see:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/1984-j12.shtml > > > On Jun 19, 3:54 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Archytas, you are quite right that the history of human trade and > > > power are rife with examples of abuses, excesses and every dastardly > > > deed known to and by our species. In fact the history of humanity in > > > all it's splendor is rife with those sames abuses and excesses. It is > > > also true that when it comes to abuses, excesses and downright > > > nastiness, there is no species in existence (that we know of) which > > > outdoes the human species. > > > > It is an age old truth and therefore trite that when it comes to nasty > > > behavior, there is nothing new under the sun. Or any other star for > > > that matter. However, I'd be willing to bet a solar unit or two that > > > if there are other intelligent and sentient species in existence, that > > > they've been through the same horrific growth process to becoming > > > civilized. > > > > I become lost by your statement that you don't believe in capitalism. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that -- what it is that you don't > > > believe in. It sounds to me much like saying you don't believe in > > > trade or commerce. It's not a matter of belief. It just is. We've > > > brought capitalism into existence by virtue of our penchant for trade, > > > business and living better than the Joneses. We created profit in the > > > same manner and for the same reasons. When we began to lay off those > > > profits by investing in other money making schemes, we created > > > capitalism. > > > > The way transactions work is really very simple. They work according > > > to the principles and parameters of supply and demand. An area I > > > think that needs working on is rather than going after the highest > > > profit or making the most money, we concentrate on a fair profit and > > > making a fair amount of money. Win-win transactions that benefit all > > > parties are the stuff of moral economics. > > > > Looking at what unions have created in western society, I'm not so > > > sure that the preying isn't on both sides of the fence. There is > > > something somewhat out of kilter when an assembly line worker in > > > Detroit makes more in wages and benefits than a nurse or skilled > > > technician. > > > > On Jun 19, 2:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Even Marx and Lenin thought there was some good in capitalism, at > > > > least in markets. The problem was always to do with competition > > > > producing monopoly once one lot got really efficient. Capitalism at > > > > least freed us up from feudalism. My own suspicion is that even > > > > these arguments failed to take into account what the historic > > > > conditions and mechanisms of trade and power had really been about. I > > > > don't believe in capitalism because I'm sure it's as mythical and > > > > religious stories and both communism and democracy have roots in > > > > societies in which the rich came up with the ideas on the backs of > > > > work done by slaves. We are overdue for our own ideas and something > > > > that allows for very different people in it. I think we had some > > > > brief eddies some years back when jobs were not scarce of what it > > > > might feel like not to be beholden to the boss class. I would guess > > > > we have missed the chance for a sane (ish) society since WW2 by > > > > encouraging huge population expansion and failing to be sensible about > > > > religion. Capitalism is probably just b-play to this wider lunacy. > > > > What we need in systems of transaction is to understand how they self- > > > > regulate so that we can trust to do work and feel it won't be stolen > > > > in one way or another. Capitalism always preys on some labour that > > > > cannot protect itself. This shouldn't blind us to its good bits.
