by Trotskylvania » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:46 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Vectrova » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm
by Trotskylvania » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:55 pm
Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say
but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Costa Alegria » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:57 pm
by Vectrova » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:57 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say
but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be
This is more of a "gotcha" argument than a serious proposal. It does, however, apply equally to social conditioning, as well as any other speculative political philosophy.
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:58 pm
Costa Alegria wrote:So what you're saying is that people using human nature in arguments that relate to political ideologies are now fallacies, correct?
by Reichsland » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:00 pm
by Trotskylvania » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:00 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Xomic » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:02 pm
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:02 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Genivaria wrote:Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.
I'm taking a different tack though. Human nature isn't really immutable anymore. So that leaves the person who has argued the point an uncomfortable choice. They can accept that if it is human nature that is the barrier, it can be changed through genetic engineering. Or, they have to abandon the human nature argument, and say that these things that are barriers to X society are not part of our biological nature, and thus fixable.
by Liriena » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:05 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Trotskylvania » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:05 pm
Xomic wrote:Yet if you alter the underlying aspects of humanity, then we're not longer discussing humans.
You're right that, if someone attempted to apply human nature to some sort of transhuman species, it would be a fallacy, but only because they're equating two very different things. This does not mean that appealing to human nature, while talking about humans, would be equally fallacious.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Costa Alegria » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:06 pm
Genivaria wrote:Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.
by Trotskylvania » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:10 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Condunum » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:12 pm
Liriena wrote:My hypothesis sustains that "human nature", if it exists, it's a natural proclivity for peaceful and ordered community life, empathy for other individuals and social division according to job.
by Multiflow » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:13 pm
by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:13 pm
by Xomic » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:17 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Xomic wrote:Yet if you alter the underlying aspects of humanity, then we're not longer discussing humans.
You're right that, if someone attempted to apply human nature to some sort of transhuman species, it would be a fallacy, but only because they're equating two very different things. This does not mean that appealing to human nature, while talking about humans, would be equally fallacious.
If you're genetically engineered specimens can still produce viable offspring with unaugmented humans, then the augments are still human. But even if they can't, that still leaves the person making the human nature argument in a place where they must argue that existing human nature is more important than morality.
by Multiflow » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:18 pm
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Not necessarily. If human nature is the set of all fundamental human characteristics, then Alice has identified some perceived subset of human nature that conflicts with the expectations of communism. She's arguing that because of this subset of characteristics, communism cannot be actualised, even though it might be a pleasant idea. That's fair enough, if she can justify it.
But all of the elements of her identified subset are contained in other subsets; collections of characteristics which she might not consider undesirable. In the context of communism, Alice might consider some characteristic an unfortunate obstacle; but in another context she might consider it sacrosanct.
For example, "self-interest" can be slotted into the negative category of "selfishness", but is contained in the more positive category of "ambition". Her approach to "self-interest" and the context in which she is considering it determines her moral judgement. If we aggregate this, your conclusion rests on whether she considers the "negatives" as outweighing the "positives", as considered in all contexts.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:20 pm
Multiflow wrote:The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Not necessarily. If human nature is the set of all fundamental human characteristics, then Alice has identified some perceived subset of human nature that conflicts with the expectations of communism. She's arguing that because of this subset of characteristics, communism cannot be actualised, even though it might be a pleasant idea. That's fair enough, if she can justify it.
But all of the elements of her identified subset are contained in other subsets; collections of characteristics which she might not consider undesirable. In the context of communism, Alice might consider some characteristic an unfortunate obstacle; but in another context she might consider it sacrosanct.
For example, "self-interest" can be slotted into the negative category of "selfishness", but is contained in the more positive category of "ambition". Her approach to "self-interest" and the context in which she is considering it determines her moral judgement. If we aggregate this, your conclusion rests on whether she considers the "negatives" as outweighing the "positives", as considered in all contexts.
If you want something, get the group to do it for itself. Less personal effort, and being a part of the group, receive it also.
by Free Detroit » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:29 pm
Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say
but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be
by Liriena » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:34 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Multiflow » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:34 pm
by Xomic » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:36 pm
Free Detroit wrote:Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say
but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be
Social / cultural conditioning can be changed rather quickly; within a generation if proper measures are taken. There is no "ideological inertia"; culture is not genetic.
For example, a couple millennia of Christian domination in Europe did not biologically condition us to accept Jesus as the big cheese of the universe. How long has it taken for atheism to become a more-or-less acceptable public position in Anglo-European cultures? Two or three generations. Did it require brain surgery or eugenics? Not really.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Barinive, Disstrackia, Keltionialang, Kostane, Tiami, Trump Almighty, Umeria, USHALLNOTPASS, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement