Nietzsche, Orwell, Huxley, Rand

Good job! You caught me on a few fine points, and that certainly makes me feel good about starting this thread. Appreciate you.


Yes, I suppose it is Americentric, and I am partially venting. However, I should point out that, though Orwell's 1984 (and Animal Farm) were written to indicate a current state of affairs, specifically with regard to the Soviet Union and Communism, he wrote an essay warning people that these things could happen in a Socialist or Democratic society as well. One of the prints of Animal Farm had it as a preface; so there was a bit of the prophetic, or at least, cautionary tale intended on his part.


And, I'm not so sure technology isn't used more for this than anything else. Hell, you can get a satellite picture of anyone's house on google, it seems. When I was looking to rent houses last year, I didn't even have to leave my apartment! And the people I eventually rented from didn't even know their house was available for view that way, so it wasn't something they authorized. Like I said, governments wouldn't be likely to tip their hand about this if it were true, would they? Not necessarily true? Sure. Absolutely ridiculous? Absolutely not.

I do suspect that the power that lobbyists exert in American government (yes, specifically America) has gotten worse, but I also see a trend, and this recent gun debacle is a good indicator, that people here are getting disgusted with it. There's a lot of gimmicky bullshit in American politics, almost like everything is won or lost according to who has the better marketing scheme, or presentation, instead of whose argument has more substance and value. To some extent this is an old game, but it's still bullshit, and we should work to change it. Maybe it's futile, but the only way to try is to speak and wrangle out what of truth can be known.

And the example I gave via Huxley is just one. The current American pharmaceutical industry is definitely marketing itself as a panacea for people's psychological woes. That doesn't mean it's working.

I wasn't trying to draw direct parallels between what those authors said and what's going on. That would be absolutely ridiculous; but it does seem to me that they anticipated possible trends, even if unintentionally.

And you aren't remarking about Nietzsche's last man. Do you see something in what I'm saying there.

I take off my hat to you, sir... that should make it easier to brow-beat me!

 

I agree '1984' was a cautionary tale. It's questionable how prophetic it has been, though.
The '1984' comparison reminds me of Political Correctness Gone Mad or a particular President is Hitler reborn.
There should be another version of 'Godwins law' for anytime a particular debate results in somebody saying: "Oh, it's so like '1984', isn't it?"

Although I don't think Google Maps is necessarily 'spying', what technology does it use? Satelites/Camera's/aeroplanes, and processing power. What else?
Also, most of the info is over 5 years old.

Perhaps something we should agree to disagree on.

In what way is the recent gun debacle a good indicator?

Maybe. Is it pharmaceutical industry or the citizen? I am surprised how many Americans around here have been or are on some form of medication.
Perhaps taking medication is cheaper than other treatments.

Nagh!
I think Star Trek has had more hits at the Bullseyes than any of the people you mentioned.

I didn't know where to start with that one.

I wasn't trying to be rude or anything. Just sharin' opinions.
It's nice you haven't taken any of this personally, and have been such a good sport.
I take off my hat to you.

 

I say the recent gun debacle is a good indicator because it's forced some people I know personally, who once took a hard stance for either side, to re-evaluate the issue from a mental health as well as a personal rights and personal safety perspective. I understand and concur with the philosophical base of the second amendment; and I don't agree with any law that seeks to limit what people can and can't do with themselves.

It seems to me what the law should be in the business of policing what people try to do to each other, with or without guns. Gun control, sure, to an extent, and to what extent has to be adjudicated by a long and hard discussion where lots of fine points are wrangled over; but a gun ban?

Well, it's not hard to see to what extent we enable violent crime by creating a black market. For all that the propagandists say drugs cause violent crime, it should be pretty obvious to anybody with their eyes open that drug prohibition creates a black market which gives a greater opportuntity to violent criminals. You would have thought that alcohol prohibition in the twenties, and the swell of mobs and gangs that bootlegging supported, would have been enough of an eye-opener to discourage a hardline prohibition of any vice; but no. They went ahead, and you can thank Nixon and his scheduled drug policies for a good deal of the most recent damage.

I'm not saying drug addiction isn't a problem; but to some extent, and I think to a greater extent, we have to allow people to sink or swim on their own. Offering a hand when someone falls down is one thing; but you can't carry them their whole lives, or how will they even potentially develop the strength to walk on their own?

And that plays into the point about over-medication. So much of what medicine offers relies (and I know this is a bold assertion, and you can take me to task for it if you want) on the placebo effect. Even though it's not a sugar pill, anti-depressants, tranquilizers, ADHD pills and other medications don't necessarily treat psychological disorders. They cause side effects which counteract side effects of such disorders. I don't have any suggestions for a better way -- hey, I'm not medically trained -- but the stuff doesn't seem to be working the way it's marketing. Personal experience and observation are what I'm going on. Maybe doctors should be more willing to say this (but maybe in a gentler way): "Grow up. Time to put the big girl/boy britches on and start looking at what you can do for yourself."

And we have to make generalizations when approaching general problems, and then narrow them down to particular situations. There's no catch-all remedy for anything.

Godwin's Law! I had to look it up. Funny. Sportsmanship is indeed the key to healthy discussion. Thanks for challenging me. Enjoyed it!

 

Well, what is that?
That you can have a gun regardless of if you are part of a well regulated militia, or that you need a gun to protect your nearest and dearest?
I think the original constitution put in enough gun controls for it to be sensible.
The 'gun lobby' have argued they have the right to bare arms, the Constitutionalists have said it is perfectly acceptable to bare arms, subsequent amendments, and X V and Y have said you have the right to carry guns for protection purposes only.
All put pressure on giving you guns as and when you want them, regardless of if you need them.
So, who won the argument? Those trying to ban guns failed.

 

Well, as far as I'm concerned, sir, it's long-sleeved shirts all the way! Heathen!

No, I'm just kidding. I misspell things too.

Yes, the gun-banners lost, and that's good. This from someone who never owned a gun and probably never will. There is the sidebar, too, that just like with drug prohibition, outright gun prohibition would create a black market that would create a much wider and bloodier criminal base. really, there already is such a black market to bypass the regulations, so one has to wonder to what extent those can be deemed effective. It like the difference between prescription and illegal drugs.

 

My point was only a few want an outright ban. But the duality between 'philosophical base of the second amendment' and the gun lobby provokes enough gun love anyway.
Why not go back to a well run orgainised militia - the end?

 

I didn't quite catch the point about "other amendments" X V and Y. To my knowledge, the Second Amendment is the only part of the U.S. Constitution addressing guns or gun rights. Of course, no constitutional right, not even first amendment rights, are considered absolute. The federal government can set reasonable limits on most rights, and can even limit First Amendment rights if it has a "compelling state interest", as determined by the courts.

 

e.g:

http://tinyurl.com/agkmhbd

 

humans are cheap. that's the basic point of all those philosophers/existentialists.

 

I love it when people hit the nail on the head in one sentence! Yet it should be amended that they all felt there was hope for humanity, and this was the reason for their attempts to enlighten us as to our cheapness. Social critique is a necessary evil.

 

Sorry, social critique is not necessary.

Learning to have good relations helps.

All civility is precisely equal to your relationship to the person standing next to you. Before you decide what is appropriate for others you must find good grace and be on equal accounts with your personal relationships.

Do you find yourself at odds with someone you are acquainted with, fix that!

Critical is a grave condition. It is analysis that exposes the problem and hence the solution. Solution is equal dispersal.

 

i disagree, IMHO analysis is potentially reductive, in that it breaks complex things down into intellectually manageable subsections. this does not always lead to an understanding of a things problems, only its properties, since problems often arise due to the interaction of the thing with other things. for example, an analysis of marxism would involve breaking it down into separate elements in order to understand it, but it would not necessarily reveal all of its problems or potential problems, since these would tend to arise from the interaction of marxism with other schools of thought and contrary positions. Analysis might give you a better understanding of somethings nature or mechanics, but unless problems arise entirely from these (which is not always so) potential problems will be lost to an analyst.


on the other hand, it is the nature of criticism to identify both a things merits (although the colloquial understanding of criticism tends to cast it in an entirely negative light) and its problems by considering the thing in relation to other things which both act on and inform or shape its nature. it is often from these interactions that problems present themselves. analysis is, of course, necessary for informed criticism, but criticism does not stop at analysis. it also goes bigger. and isn't constrained by the parameters of the subject.

 

I may have not fleshed out what I meant sufficiently and I certainly take your point from the angle you present it.

I mean apprehending correctly presents no difficulties. To know a things properties or function does not arouse suspicion. It is the objection to properties or functions that are problematic.

Phenomena do not make themselves difficult to apprehend but superstition does.
Appreciation does include as a variety, critical acclaim.

 

i'm sure that's all quite correct, although i don't understand it at all

i thought you were saying that social criticism is not necessary and that it should be replaced by analysis. or, at any rate, that analysis was more valuable than criticism in terms of identifying societal problems (or just in general). on that point we'd differ, although i gather it wasn't the one you were, in fact, making.

 

The dope has either never been injusticed or taken advantage of; or he is dissociative about having been injusticed or taken advantage of. Either way, his dead horse is thoroughly beaten. The name of this corpse is "Why can't we all just get along?" I don't even think he was the one who originally killed it. Anything that bloated must have been feeding maggots for awhile.

 

Injustice is not a phenomenal statistic. It is a personal perception. Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it. I do not dissociate from anything. I have suffered many things in my life and simply tired of suffering. I was so overcome by injustice as a matter of fact that I thought there must be a better way and I would invest myself to find it having accepted the fact that none of my previous learning, including sharing at one time osiris's perspective, could free me from the brutality of my mistakes.

The only animals that have been harmed in the telling of my story have been raccoon.

There is a difference between being dissociated from life and refusing to engage in vain apprehension.

 

You dirty bastard. You told me that nothing real can be harmed . . .

Anyway, I have to agree with the rest of your post.

 

Your concept of vanity and my own are markedly different. Maybe we are, after all, equal and opposite images reflected between opposing mirrors. When mirror regards mirror, which is the reflection?

 

I use the term vain in the following senses,

Unsuccessful, failing to have or unlikely to have the intended or desired result,
or, empty of substance or meaning.