comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’
Adders
Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.
If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber
I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?
If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.
Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.
Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery
Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.
Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course
Fackers have put my mobile phone bill up 8% due to the January RPI rate.
Any excuse
Putney private tennis club gender options?
Female (including transgender)
Male (including transgender)
Female is (no longer valid)
#Womensrights
Maybe Tim Henman should change name to Tina Hentrans and actually win?
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread )
Putin playing Fox News and Tucker like a fiddle:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vw7p/russia-was-losing-the-information-war-then-fox-news-stepped-in?utm_medium=vicenewsig&utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-vicenews&utm_content=later-25634668&utm_source=linkin.bio
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if I can pull Descartes😳
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 hours, 19 minutes ago
Putney private tennis club gender options?
Female (including transgender)
Male (including transgender)
Female is (no longer valid)
#Womensrights
Maybe Tim Henman should change name to Tina Hentrans and actually win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant.
Tim Henwoman Hill.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening boss
I used to be a woman👍
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’
Adders
Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.
If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber
I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?
If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.
Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.
Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery
Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.
Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would play Hobbes up front, with Machiavelli, Rousseau roaming midfield, Plato on the left,❤️Burke on the right, obvs, and Bobby Davro as super sub.👍
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted about 2 hours ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I agree with the premise: that ultimately human beings are good.
However, I think Bregman is mistaken in that the kind of self preservation, or selfishness in the state of nature, means that human beings are unkind. Its not so much that human beings are naturally bad, but that they are driven by egoism, whether their actions be good or bad.
It is from that egoism and desire for self preservation, that human beings will form societies which can protect them, but egoism does also conflict with each other. It is also though out of our desire for peace (which is in our interest) though, that we handover power to the soverign or state.
"The war of all against all" is cynical and depressing. But he certainly does not believe human beings as bad. We are only bad in the state of nature, only out of lack of trust for one another. But human beings want to do good, and thus build up a state or social contract to fascilitate it.
I have my issues with social contact theory though and ethical eogism. There is a lot of emphasis on rationality, which excludes animals and those with mental illnesses or disability, who are unable to sign to a social contact.
Theres also the irony that Hobbes was a much better person really than Rousseau (who was a massive ).
A philosophy thread could be fun
For it to work I think it would need to be updated every so often, where an OP would choose a particular topic to discuss, which would invite responses. Every person has their own ideas on things, but such a thread would need directing by someone to keep it active.
I could see such a thread altnerating on a particular philosopher, topic or movement. Where once in a while, it could change from discussing practical ethics to what is existenntialism.
Taylor Hawkins, gone! Fk me! 50 years old.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 8 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted about 2 hours ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I agree with the premise: that ultimately human beings are good.
However, I think Bregman is mistaken in that the kind of self preservation, or selfishness in the state of nature, means that human beings are unkind. Its not so much that human beings are naturally bad, but that they are driven by egoism, whether their actions be good or bad.
It is from that egoism and desire for self preservation, that human beings will form societies which can protect them, but egoism does also conflict with each other. It is also though out of our desire for peace (which is in our interest) though, that we handover power to the soverign or state.
"The war of all against all" is cynical and depressing. But he certainly does not believe human beings as bad. We are only bad in the state of nature, only out of lack of trust for one another. But human beings want to do good, and thus build up a state or social contract to fascilitate it.
I have my issues with social contact theory though and ethical eogism. There is a lot of emphasis on rationality, which excludes animals and those with mental illnesses or disability, who are unable to sign to a social contact.
Theres also the irony that Hobbes was a much better person really than Rousseau (who was a massive).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to read up on Bregman.
Would he be another falling into the trap Graeber identified of making Rousseau his binary choice? Or is his diagnosis a little more nuanced?
Extrapolating from Graeber a little, I have huge problems with the very bedrock concept of ‘state of nature’ which has no agreed definition, and might as such be used to describe groups humans with all manner of intellectual tools, practical skills, customs, linguistic sophistications, etc. across different ‘pre-civilised’ groups.
Although I don’t believe (when they aren’t being misrepresented) Rousseau or Hobbes fell into that particular trap, some have since, which is remarkable given how much more we now know than they did about prehistory. That would be another huge failing of anyone relying on Rousseau or Hobbes to extend an argument about the development of human nature within systems.
‘War of all against all’ I don’t think anyone who has reached the age of forty years can support in the modern era, unless they’ve led their adult life with blinkers on. I really don’t. I think it’s absolute bunk when considered in context. Maybe I am now reading too literally, but I have seen and heard anecdotal evidence against scores and scores and scores of times.
In terms of their characters, is there a possibility that Hobbes and Rousseau were indicative of a wider pattern when we consider ‘pessimists’ and ‘optimists’?
^ That second para is a bit messy. I hope you get what I’m saying; basically that noone should be building an ‘historically supported’ argument from ‘state of nature’ unless they’ve first defined state of nature very carefully indeed. (Sorry, not fully woken up yet!)
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 48 minutes ago
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the Labour lead looking? Voting intentions?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 48 minutes ago
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the Labour lead looking? Voting intentions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 40% (+1)
CON: 35% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REF: 2% (-2)
via @RedfieldWilton, 20 Mar
Chgs. w/ 13 Mar
Last one I could find from Monday
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
P&O cruises are running adverts desperately saying "it's not us"
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have had a ship impounded now too, because the staff are not properly trained.
I posted the other day that the guy who fired staff over zoom is an ex Royal Mail "union buster" and was high up the chain of command under our previous failed leadership.
Low skill, low paid workers without Union rights is what they are seeking to achieve here, when society needs the exact opposite.
The more i read about this, the more i see that they are just desperately trying to maintain their dividend levels in the face of falling work due to brexit.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is usually the case in most companies. Have worked for about 5-6 multinationals and the level of incompetence and sheer stupidity I have seen at levels of senior management (I'm talking vice president level) is astounding
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2639 of 6148
2640 | 2641 | 2642 | 2643 | 2644
posted on 25/3/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’
Adders
Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.
If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber
I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?
If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.
Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.
Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery
Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.
Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
posted on 25/3/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course
posted on 25/3/22
Fackers have put my mobile phone bill up 8% due to the January RPI rate.
Any excuse
posted on 25/3/22
Putney private tennis club gender options?
Female (including transgender)
Male (including transgender)
Female is (no longer valid)
#Womensrights
Maybe Tim Henman should change name to Tina Hentrans and actually win?
posted on 25/3/22
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread )
posted on 25/3/22
Putin playing Fox News and Tucker like a fiddle:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vw7p/russia-was-losing-the-information-war-then-fox-news-stepped-in?utm_medium=vicenewsig&utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-vicenews&utm_content=later-25634668&utm_source=linkin.bio
posted on 25/3/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if I can pull Descartes😳
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 hours, 19 minutes ago
Putney private tennis club gender options?
Female (including transgender)
Male (including transgender)
Female is (no longer valid)
#Womensrights
Maybe Tim Henman should change name to Tina Hentrans and actually win?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant.
Tim Henwoman Hill.
posted on 25/3/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by #4zA - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 no al calcio moderno (U22472)
posted 51 seconds ago
I not even mention UConn basketball…..yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that because of New Mexico State?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you must mean the woman's team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening boss
I used to be a woman👍
posted on 25/3/22
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’
Adders
Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.
If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber
I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?
If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.
Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.
Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery
Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.
Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would play Hobbes up front, with Machiavelli, Rousseau roaming midfield, Plato on the left,❤️Burke on the right, obvs, and Bobby Davro as super sub.👍
posted on 25/3/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted about 2 hours ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I agree with the premise: that ultimately human beings are good.
However, I think Bregman is mistaken in that the kind of self preservation, or selfishness in the state of nature, means that human beings are unkind. Its not so much that human beings are naturally bad, but that they are driven by egoism, whether their actions be good or bad.
It is from that egoism and desire for self preservation, that human beings will form societies which can protect them, but egoism does also conflict with each other. It is also though out of our desire for peace (which is in our interest) though, that we handover power to the soverign or state.
"The war of all against all" is cynical and depressing. But he certainly does not believe human beings as bad. We are only bad in the state of nature, only out of lack of trust for one another. But human beings want to do good, and thus build up a state or social contract to fascilitate it.
I have my issues with social contact theory though and ethical eogism. There is a lot of emphasis on rationality, which excludes animals and those with mental illnesses or disability, who are unable to sign to a social contact.
Theres also the irony that Hobbes was a much better person really than Rousseau (who was a massive ).
posted on 26/3/22
A philosophy thread could be fun
For it to work I think it would need to be updated every so often, where an OP would choose a particular topic to discuss, which would invite responses. Every person has their own ideas on things, but such a thread would need directing by someone to keep it active.
I could see such a thread altnerating on a particular philosopher, topic or movement. Where once in a while, it could change from discussing practical ethics to what is existenntialism.
posted on 26/3/22
Taylor Hawkins, gone! Fk me! 50 years old.
posted on 26/3/22
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 8 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted about 2 hours ago
BH
“Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.”
Can you elaborate just a little bit?
Graeber is such a massive loss, btw, we’ll before his time. Quite a unique commentator.
(We still need a philosophy thread)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I agree with the premise: that ultimately human beings are good.
However, I think Bregman is mistaken in that the kind of self preservation, or selfishness in the state of nature, means that human beings are unkind. Its not so much that human beings are naturally bad, but that they are driven by egoism, whether their actions be good or bad.
It is from that egoism and desire for self preservation, that human beings will form societies which can protect them, but egoism does also conflict with each other. It is also though out of our desire for peace (which is in our interest) though, that we handover power to the soverign or state.
"The war of all against all" is cynical and depressing. But he certainly does not believe human beings as bad. We are only bad in the state of nature, only out of lack of trust for one another. But human beings want to do good, and thus build up a state or social contract to fascilitate it.
I have my issues with social contact theory though and ethical eogism. There is a lot of emphasis on rationality, which excludes animals and those with mental illnesses or disability, who are unable to sign to a social contact.
Theres also the irony that Hobbes was a much better person really than Rousseau (who was a massive).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to read up on Bregman.
Would he be another falling into the trap Graeber identified of making Rousseau his binary choice? Or is his diagnosis a little more nuanced?
Extrapolating from Graeber a little, I have huge problems with the very bedrock concept of ‘state of nature’ which has no agreed definition, and might as such be used to describe groups humans with all manner of intellectual tools, practical skills, customs, linguistic sophistications, etc. across different ‘pre-civilised’ groups.
Although I don’t believe (when they aren’t being misrepresented) Rousseau or Hobbes fell into that particular trap, some have since, which is remarkable given how much more we now know than they did about prehistory. That would be another huge failing of anyone relying on Rousseau or Hobbes to extend an argument about the development of human nature within systems.
‘War of all against all’ I don’t think anyone who has reached the age of forty years can support in the modern era, unless they’ve led their adult life with blinkers on. I really don’t. I think it’s absolute bunk when considered in context. Maybe I am now reading too literally, but I have seen and heard anecdotal evidence against scores and scores and scores of times.
In terms of their characters, is there a possibility that Hobbes and Rousseau were indicative of a wider pattern when we consider ‘pessimists’ and ‘optimists’?
posted on 26/3/22
^ That second para is a bit messy. I hope you get what I’m saying; basically that noone should be building an ‘historically supported’ argument from ‘state of nature’ unless they’ve first defined state of nature very carefully indeed. (Sorry, not fully woken up yet!)
posted on 26/3/22
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
posted on 26/3/22
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 48 minutes ago
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the Labour lead looking? Voting intentions?
posted on 26/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 48 minutes ago
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement
Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the Labour lead looking? Voting intentions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 40% (+1)
CON: 35% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REF: 2% (-2)
via @RedfieldWilton, 20 Mar
Chgs. w/ 13 Mar
Last one I could find from Monday
posted on 26/3/22
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
posted on 26/3/22
P&O cruises are running adverts desperately saying "it's not us"
posted on 26/3/22
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
posted on 26/3/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have had a ship impounded now too, because the staff are not properly trained.
I posted the other day that the guy who fired staff over zoom is an ex Royal Mail "union buster" and was high up the chain of command under our previous failed leadership.
Low skill, low paid workers without Union rights is what they are seeking to achieve here, when society needs the exact opposite.
The more i read about this, the more i see that they are just desperately trying to maintain their dividend levels in the face of falling work due to brexit.
posted on 26/3/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by *Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 6 minutes ago
The P&O board need to be sacked.
Whoever agreed that 800 people needing to be sacked, and in this way - absolute shambles.
Crazy. Have done irreparable harm to the brand and it’s reputation, and will probably need to be sold.
https://twitter.com/leftgrassroots/status/1507476776884260867?s=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be dismissed as simplistic, but if your business proposition relies on paying your staff poverty wages, it’s a shiiiiit model, and your business deserves to die.
That actually isn’t the case with P&O though. They wouldn’t be in a position in which they’ve had to make ‘difficult choices’ if the business had been run properly. The proposition isn’t the problem. The management has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is usually the case in most companies. Have worked for about 5-6 multinationals and the level of incompetence and sheer stupidity I have seen at levels of senior management (I'm talking vice president level) is astounding
Page 2639 of 6148
2640 | 2641 | 2642 | 2643 | 2644