tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4275368576224993537..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The State of Nature: Part TwoDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23354081075979571762018-10-29T22:24:21.827-07:002018-10-29T22:24:21.827-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Puja Kumarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10944428526156965983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11791876147921801622018-10-29T22:19:32.343-07:002018-10-29T22:19:32.343-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rani Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11616717648500842809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37996302131028540242018-10-29T07:29:24.772-07:002018-10-29T07:29:24.772-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Eillen Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406791871657014857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38605080026907484852018-10-29T03:56:15.923-07:002018-10-29T03:56:15.923-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Naincyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03730922154490519478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86838683466224453812018-10-27T04:29:07.639-07:002018-10-27T04:29:07.639-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Puja Kumarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10944428526156965983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71250856777845827602018-10-27T04:27:00.106-07:002018-10-27T04:27:00.106-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Naincyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03730922154490519478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92171551841734054162018-10-27T03:40:55.572-07:002018-10-27T03:40:55.572-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91320430013822173232018-10-26T23:12:33.242-07:002018-10-26T23:12:33.242-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11560282096055237865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71702052794408273422007-06-24T17:38:00.000-07:002007-06-24T17:38:00.000-07:00JONATHAN: So, enterik, would it be accurate to say...<I>JONATHAN: So, enterik, would it be accurate to say that you prefer taking your philosophers Tzu by Tzu?</I><BR/><BR/>Hurrah! Hurrah! And the little one stops to formulate an antithesis towards deriving a hegelian synthesis, and they all go marching down into the ground to get out of the rain, bum, bum, bum...Enterikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758515647778280562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59348330045746503912007-06-23T14:35:00.000-07:002007-06-23T14:35:00.000-07:00The contrast Hobbes and Rousseau brought to my min...<I>The contrast Hobbes and Rousseau brought to my mind an earlier pair of philosophical contemporaries, Itinerant middle-management administrator K'ung Tzu (proponent of hierarchies and rules) and Librarian Lao Tzu (proponent of the great integrity of a simpler past).</I><BR/><BR/><I>Both articulated useful notions regarding human nature and society, but I find the empirical meritocracy of Mo Tzu and the operant conditioning-based legalism of Han Fei Tzu to be more relevant to describing the success of [modern] civilization in apparently reducing violence.</I><BR/><BR/>So, enterik, would it be accurate to say that you prefer taking your philosophers Tzu by Tzu?<BR/><BR/>(Sorry, I couldn't help myself...) :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6095785475052634082007-06-22T16:18:00.000-07:002007-06-22T16:18:00.000-07:00However, I should add that sometimes some thorough...However, I should add that sometimes some thoroughly disgusting dictator may be the least bad option. Has deposing Saddam Hussein really had any beneficial effects? Could it have had beneficial effects if done right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33126330019627136462007-06-22T16:12:00.000-07:002007-06-22T16:12:00.000-07:00I agree that the author of the historyexplained we...I agree that the author of the historyexplained website doesn't take enough care to distinguish among dictators. The one that really bothered me was his criticism of the West for opposing N. Korea's take over of S. Korea. It's true that the division of the peninsula is not a good thing, but in light of the current conditions in N & S Korea, how can anyone argue that the Koreans wouldn't be better off if the South backed by Western powers had succeeded in taking over the North.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57822801261552246082007-06-22T08:27:00.000-07:002007-06-22T08:27:00.000-07:00"But we are capable of IMAGINING being wrong. It's..."But we are capable of IMAGINING being wrong. It's why we have science. Ironically by our standards... I think that suggests we're the sane ones."<BR/><BR/>This, I agree with completely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70081432559788697032007-06-21T21:39:00.000-07:002007-06-21T21:39:00.000-07:00I consider none of the Enlightenment's copmponents...I consider none of the Enlightenment's copmponents to be above citokate. Indeed, the citokate process is THE core element that makes enlightenmant cultures error-correcting processes and capable of metazoan virtues.<BR/><BR/>I have often pointed out that even admirable movements like inclusion and tolerance and otherness can become silly when they are fetishistic and neglect any connection to their gritty roots.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I have elsewhere (someone liunk to my "meme war" piece) said that I'm not even sure this great experiment is sane! Certainly the New Confucians do not think so. Nor do the Wh'ha'bs.<BR/><BR/>But we are capable of IMAGINING being wrong. It's why we have science. Ironically by our standards... I think that suggests we're the sane ones.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84710740988106076502007-06-21T20:34:00.000-07:002007-06-21T20:34:00.000-07:00A clarification on my last paragraph (I realized I...A clarification on my last paragraph (I realized I cut it a little short to be clear):<BR/><BR/>"Putting the moral philosophies of the Enlightenment "above philosophy" is just as dangerous as putting the actions of Mao or Stalin "beyond good and evil." (qv, Nietzsche)"<BR/><BR/>That is, you are putting one flawed set of rules above all others. Maybe I shouldn't care what philosophies others extoll.<BR/><BR/>sarcasm<BR/>Or maybe I'm secretly rooting for Sartre's Existentialism or Campbell's "Follow Your Bliss", instead ;) Or maybe Hedonism. I've always wanted to have 2,000 wives.<BR/>/sarcasmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27773224648068121142007-06-21T20:26:00.000-07:002007-06-21T20:26:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin, Your theory that the Enlightenment is "...Dr. Brin, <BR/><BR/>Your theory that the Enlightenment is "above" philosophy is very intriguing. I would like to -- and some extent, I do -- believe this personally. <BR/><BR/>There is some truth to it, since philosophy and science (and occultism, with a few seedier things) walked hand-in-hand, and vast amounts were learned in a short period of time. Beautiful thoughts and a beautiful age.<BR/><BR/>But there is a danger of putting the Enlightenment on too high of a pedastal, and to become too blind to its flaws. The mistakes of the past shouldn't be forgotten. <BR/><BR/>While the Enlightenment as an entity may be "above Philosophy", the moral philosophies created during it are not. Some of them are wonderful, I agree -- but they bear the weakness of all moral philosophy: That they cannot be proven. Therefore you cannot convert anyone that does not want to be converted. <BR/><BR/>Putting the moral philosophies of the Enlightenment "above philosophy" is just as dangerous as putting the actions of Mao or Stalin "beyond good and evil." (qv, Nietzsche)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65992384508173161862007-06-21T20:14:00.000-07:002007-06-21T20:14:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin,Washington was a great man. I agree with ...Dr. Brin,<BR/><BR/>Washington was a great man. I agree with that. But he was flawed as well. If I am not mistaken, not much later on he lost his faith that America could rule and protect itself. He came to vocally favor going back under the rule of Great Britain.<BR/><BR/>This is related to the whole "Federalist Papers" fiasco, as I remember.<BR/><BR/>(I haven't looked up sources on this today, because it's too late, and I am a mere mortal. My degree is not in history or philosophy. If I am wrong, then I will learn something new :) )<BR/><BR/>My point is, that Washington didn't really let go. He may have stepped aside, but he came back later, rather forcefully.<BR/><BR/>No matter how great the man, the temptations of power are hard to resist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50720563299469553582007-06-21T14:05:00.000-07:002007-06-21T14:05:00.000-07:00Simplistic by far. What Cromwell & Napolean ... a...Simplistic by far. <BR/><BR/>What Cromwell & Napolean ... and my hero Pericles, for that matter... represented was men who arose during mass transitions toward more democracy and a more level power structure, at a time when the people were clearly ready for more freedom/power, but NOT ready to exert a genuine,m explicit social contract.<BR/><BR/>What makes these three special is that they sincerely wanted the people's revolution to succeed... partly... in ways that would make a better state and a more elevated and empowered populace... but they also deeply feared runaway effects that would turn the people into a mob.<BR/><BR/>Lenin and Stalin and Mao were in similar situations. They became true dictators, viciously slaughtering the very people they represented. In contrast, Napolean was very friendly to democracy BELOW the level of his monopoly on coercive state power and right to wage war.<BR/><BR/>In utter contrast, Washington saw that his people were relatively calm and educated and too dispersed for mob rule. The perfect time for a genius to decide to set an example and offer pulse examples of letting-go. One of the greatest men of any age.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10626922665555245612007-06-21T12:45:00.000-07:002007-06-21T12:45:00.000-07:00This website seems relevant to all the arguments i...This website seems relevant to all the arguments in this post.<BR/><BR/>http://www.historyexplained.com/<BR/><BR/>He raises some interesting points even if I don't agree with all of them.<BR/><BR/>One of his major points is that dictatorships seem almost a necessary transition between traditional aristocrat/peasant society & modern 'democratic market society' (eg: Cromwell, Napoleon) . So we should be cautious about labeling dictatorships as evil & opposing them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21629617405268791072007-06-21T11:29:00.000-07:002007-06-21T11:29:00.000-07:00Zorgon, you raise good points, but you tend to cry...Zorgon, you raise good points, but you tend to crystalize them too far. For example, it is valid to say that our society now emphasizes levels of compassionate empathy with others, to a degree that no previous nations would have even found sane. It is all part of the “expansion of horizons of inclusion” that I discuss elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>But this was not a sudden shift. Before 1900, the Salvation Army and missionary groups preached outreach to the benighted “lost souls” out there, in their own poor ghettos or overseas peoples. True, we would consider their approaches patronizing and racist and sometimes oppressive, but thousands did eagerly sign up to do what they saw as good.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ah, Don is back! Welcome back, prodigal son! DO keep up that end of the argument. We need lists like that to remind us that even though per capita violence is plummeting, the 20th Century tended to concentrate violence into sudden, roiling pits of undiluted hell. <BR/><BR/> Proving that ALL of us might find ourselves in such a zone of unravelling horror, someday. It reminds us of how fragile progress has been.<BR/><BR/>“So what accounts for the US invasion of Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan?”<BR/><BR/>Um, I know of no US troops in southern Spain. Oh GRENADA! Right. Look Don, I was no huge fan of Reagan. But unlike W, he was not always wrong. e.g. calling the USSR an “evil empire” was spot on and the left was idiotic to disagree. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I believe the fundamental test of an “imperial pax” intervention is whether the people, afterwards, are hugely glad we came. And when it comes to Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, and yes, Afghanistan, you just ask the average person (especially women in Afgh) whether they want their dictators back. Why is our popularity highest in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, despite everything W has done to drive allies away?<BR/><BR/>Dig it, Iraq seems planned IN ORDER to deny us that moral authority to intervene! And before you say “no one should have that authority” let me agree, in principle. Now find me the lawful Pan-Earth alternative.<BR/><BR/>Seriously. I have elsewhere spoken of WCN -- Whatever Comes Next in international law. Till now, the nations have defended sovereignty with utter tenacity... and we Americans rightfully fear a WCN that’s badly designed and that could turn into an oppressive world mono-state. Nevertheless, can you imagine “international” chaos lasting a thousand more years without world peoples deciding on some “Earthwide” structure? Or even a hundred years? Or even fifty?<BR/><BR/>Our problem is twofold. How to design a GOOD WCN. And how to manage things till then. Show me a better era than Pax Americana. (When it is well-led.) It is the only decent interim.<BR/><BR/>Sam, you have a point. But I like to view the Enlightenment as ABOVE philosophy. (Though Locke was a philosopher.) Rather, it is a structure within which philosophies can argue and reach new blended or metazoan forms, instead of remaining caught in unicellular life-death, either or choices (usually resolved by death.) Moreover, it has achieved pragmatic outcomes better than any other societies that let simple, unicellular philosophies guide them.<BR/><BR/>Within the Enlightenment, Nietzscheans can rave and rant and make vivid art - like Star Wars - and get rich and do everything except force others to bend to their whim.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3027536833833189802007-06-21T11:16:00.000-07:002007-06-21T11:16:00.000-07:00DavidBrin;Here's an amusing anecdote...I brought m...DavidBrin;<BR/><BR/>Here's an amusing anecdote...<BR/><BR/>I brought my father to Rancho La Brea Tar Pits and the first words out of his mouth were, "This is where I would dump the body". Fear not, we had no body in tow, my father is a career CSI. However, he was right, the attached museum contains one partial human female skeleton with a tool-punctured skull that dates to around 9000 year before present. It would seem some things haven't changed all that much over the past millenia, including erudite musings on human nature.<BR/><BR/>The contrast Hobbes and Rousseau brought to my mind an earlier pair of philosophical contemporaries, Itinerant middle-management administrator K'ung Tzu (proponent of hierarchies and rules) and Librarian Lao Tzu (proponent of the great integrity of a simpler past). <BR/><BR/>Both articulated useful notions regarding human nature and society, but I find the empirical meritocracy of Mo Tzu and the operant conditioning-based legalism of Han Fei Tzu to be more relevant to describing the success of [modern] civilization in apparently reducing violence.<BR/><BR/>Thus it would appear I fall most naturally into the Miscellaneous school of Lu Buwei who sought to condense the one hundred schools of thought into one useful tome. I suspect many others posters/readers of this blog have similar predilections even if there is some disagreement in detail.<BR/><BR/>Simply stated, cleaving too tightly to an idealogy gives one a distorted view of the past, present and future. And that noble and not so noble sentiments from the past should be periodically re-evaluated for their utility.Enterikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758515647778280562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46526720145662107412007-06-21T08:30:00.000-07:002007-06-21T08:30:00.000-07:00"Every creative act is destruction. You can only b..."Every creative act is destruction. You can only bring about the creation of the new by the death of what it replaces." - Prof. Daniel Robinson, "The Great Ideas of Philosophy" - speaking on the theories of Nietzsche. <BR/><BR/>This is a riff off of the same song, just reconfiguring the notes: Is today more corrupt? Or was the past? <BR/><BR/>Which is "better"?<BR/><BR/>In order to make a value judgment -- which is really what we're doing here -- we have to define waht constitutes "Better" or "worse." To do this, we must define what exactly a societal structure is supposed to give its members.<BR/><BR/>Safety, self-fulfillment, sense-of-belonging, a support network in times of trouble, happiness, health, quality-of-life, life expectancy, level of violence -- these are just a few possible measures. Some overly-simplified notion of "innocence", or a sole measure of violence/war, represent too few datapoints.<BR/><BR/>In fact, whatever we decide here is highly questionable -- especially as there are no members of the Tribal Societies we are discussing present on this forum.<BR/><BR/>Even beyond this, we have to accept that there may be other points of view on how to value a society:<BR/><BR/>Some people may feel (by Nietzsche-an tradition) that a society should be measured by its ability to fulfill its rulers' Will to Power: that the worth of society cannot be measured by the opinions/suffering of the Herd, but rather on the amount of success found by the Hunter.<BR/><BR/>Such a set of measures would give heavy weight to tribes ruled by cruel tyrants, and very little weight to "liberal" society. <BR/><BR/>No agreement on measures is likely to be reached. This is the danger of engaginging in philosophy. In the end philosophy is merely opinions -- and everyone has one. <BR/><BR/>Make no mistake -- when we start to try to place values or worth on a society, we have definitely crossed into the realm of philosophy. No matter how stringent our method, there will always be counterarguments -- and in this realm, arguments of gut emotion hold almost as much wieght as statistics.<BR/><BR/>I, personally, prefer to live in a society where I am not likely to be murdered or have to go to war, and I have a relatively high standard of living. <BR/><BR/>I am not a follower of Nietzsche.<BR/><BR/>That said, I still have primal urges -- I do martial arts, sword fighting, and sparring. I weight train. I enjoy conflict, when it is controlled (and especially when I win). I am still a human animal, after all.<BR/><BR/>Re: Why has violence waned? <BR/><BR/>Because people don't like to die. They don't like the uncertainty of war. And as quality of life goes up around the world, there is less desire/need to take what belongs to others. (The exceptions are obvious.) <BR/><BR/>In the end, that's what War is -- taking away somebody else's stuff. Their land. Thier lives. Their ideology. Their Oil. But there's always something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75305918149897122262007-06-21T07:17:00.000-07:002007-06-21T07:17:00.000-07:00Don Quijote remarked:So what accounts for the US i...Don Quijote remarked:<BR/><I>So what accounts for the US invasion of Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan?</I><BR/><BR/>In the case of Granada, Iraq and Afghanistan, rogue presidents exercising dictatorial powers in violation of the constitution (Iran-Contra, signing statements, abolition of habeas corpus, etc.).<BR/><BR/>The backlash by the American public against this dictatorial xenomorphosis of the U.S. presidency under the drunk-driving C student has been massive, and will increase. We can look forward to <I>fewer</I> American invasions in the foreseeable future because of these dictatorial abuses, as well as the restoration of constitutional checks and balances. A bill has already been introduced to restore habeas corpus; I predict a new improved War Powers act as a result of the Iraq debacle.<BR/><BR/>Yes, things really are getting better.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19562871055411593592007-06-21T07:09:00.000-07:002007-06-21T07:09:00.000-07:00[Sorry to put this here, but I don't find a contac...[Sorry to put this here, but I don't find a contact address for you anywhere on your site.<BR/><BR/>I thought you might want to comment on your blog on this recent trend (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html), as one of the leading proponents of a transparent society and letting the public, not just the government or the corporations, be the watchers.]Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61777183629299569842007-06-21T06:24:00.000-07:002007-06-21T06:24:00.000-07:00[1] War is the great game of kings and dictators, ...<I>[1] War is the great game of kings and dictators, and democracy has exponentiated throughout the world over the past century.</I><BR/><BR/>So what accounts for the US invasion of Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com