Log in with your MaiOtaku account.
Home Forum Anime Search Newest Help

debate

nebelstern
First, where did I say Lenin's Russia was comparable to the US or even some 20+ years later Vargas' Brazil (using 1917 as a point)? We also didn't have any kind of industry until Vargas came into power. Still, Lenin had to change his economical stance for the Union to produce more and, in time acquire world power status under Stalin. Whether I like both is irrelevant, as they bettered the macroeconomical situation of Russia until WWII's end, where Russia stagnated. Second... no one here appointed what you are, my friend. No one. I picked Capitalism and extremes from Right (Fascism) and Left (Orthodox Marxist Socialism) to make my argument of Ideology. I don't even know what you are, except Progressive, which is just a trait of a political and social leaning. And also, what mask? The mask of the Assassins Guild Darque wears? Jokes aside, my idealistic approach is that a politician should MAINLY act for the Nation, not for the people. Of the two, I prefer working for the former as the people are secondary in that goal. But if this current world is less chaotic than a perceived future that would be unbearable for me, much better to stand for the current era and avoid it to fall. I cannot bring an ideal world forth, so the current one is more suitable (albeit marginally) to my views. You are accusing me of anachronism and being multi-faced. And I cannot leave this as it is until I know whether your accusations make sense or not.
songofsisyphus
Well, if you insist, @nebelstern . You didn't explicitly say that regarding Russia, but from the use of language there was an implication that we could use the Russia between the October Revolution and the New Economic Plan as a failure of 'Orthodox Marxism', which is a little misleading, because Lenin was in fact criticised for his approach by other people we would consider Orthodox Marxists, such as Rosa Luxemburg - well, up until her torture and death in 1919 at the hands of the Freikorps, which is very regrettable as it would've been interesting to see a theoretical back-and-forth between her and other Marxists of the time. Also, Lenin's particular strain of things between 1917 and the NEP was under "War Communism" for almost its entire duration, considering that the Russian Civil War actually only ended in 1922 (and the White Army only collapsed in 1923; of course the Russian economy was practically decimated by the time the NEP had been enacted, they had been having to fight against counter-revolutions and attempted coups in which the allied powers had participated. There were some big problems with 'war communism', mainly in how the Bolshevik party took all of the powers away from the worker's councils that had been built up in the October Revolution and centralised them into the state. Listing off a number of them (this isn't all of them, but the other points are less relevant to my argument here): "1: Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management 2: State control of foreign trade 3: Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden 4: Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes 5: Prodrazvyorstka, or the requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population" Now, it is still practically miraculous that they did manage to win the war, considering the sheer amount of pressure that they had come under, and I'm sure to many people that was very inspiring, but I can't really see that as a communist venture, in actuality. Listing off some of my other problems with Lenin, because why not, his assassination of notable anarchist figures in the revolution, the purge in the Bolshevik party of 1921, and the putdown of the Kronstadt rebellion are all unforgiveable crimes, and I do see something to the idea that the people who were held up as the heroes of the October Revolution were also the among the biggest traitors to its spirit (though of course I may be exaggerating a tad in wording it this way, eh, I like my poetic flourishes every now and then). And of course the machine that Lenin and the higher echelons of the Bolshevik party had constructed was put to very sinister ends by Stalin, who I consider to have been a tyrant. Though for all my condemnations of them, as you said, the economy of Russia did indeed grow quite markedly during the period leading up to 1945. Totally off-topic, I will also grant you from a while back that from what little I've read of Yugoslavia under Tito, they did their absolute best to make the best of a very bad geopolitical situation (and to my knowledge decentralised the economy and used worker co-operatives, which seem like some pretty good things for them to have done) as well as considering many of the internal troubles of Yugoslavia which if I recall correctly tended to have a lot of ethnic dimensions, and also I do have to admire the response to an assassination attempt from Stalin that Tito sent back. I will have to do a good deal more research before I could even hope to make definitive statements on Yugoslavia though. I will then take the point that you didn't explicitly call me out on economic views, I had assumed that based on your statement on 'Orthodox Marxism' on Lenin and then later your comments and wild projection thrown in my broad direction regarding progressivism more generally that these would sort of blend together. So, that being said I ought to focus on your approach to progressivism. (though just before that, I don't really see what 'false virtue' people are supposedly pursuing, but I can assure you that at least for me, not only am I against 'false virtue' because I don't think there's a static and unchanging human nature and think that looking towards virtue as a normative ethics perspective is not a useful way of organising society, but whatever critiques I have have nothing to do with virtue) You believe that a politician should mainly act for the Nation and not the people. I take from this that you see people as subordinate to the nation in terms of importance. Also in your previous post you conflated ethnicity and national identity ("provided we, Iberian descendants and you, Anglo-Saxons have different cultures (and, by consequence, different institutions)"), which are not the same thing and is also something that fascists tend do do a lot; certainly there are different cultures in the United Kingdom and Brazil, but this is based on socioeconomic, historical and geographical context, not determined by ethnicity. It is also strange to me that your definition of a principle explicitly includes a "National sense"; surely there are principles that can exist free of nationhood. It does raise the question of what precisely you think a nation actually is. Onto the projections you seem to have made: Well, Frank, I don't place a moral expectation on you to adopt any particular ideology based on your demographic. I think that in a long-term self-interest sense many people could probably give you some good rational arguments why it isn't a good idea to have the particular ideology you do hold, but there are definitely sometimes people of certain minority demographics who adopt abhorrent political ideologies that in the long run would lead to their own demise were they to come to fruition, but in the short-term do have a rational self-interest to push them; an example of someone like this would be Jessee Lee Peterson (who makes a lot of money off of his media platform), and people like this are often paraded out by fascists and neo-Nazis as somehow an indication that they aren't virulently racist (or whatever bigotry is associated with discrimination against the minority group in question). So to reiterate, no, I will not place an expectation on you based on your demographic. Rather, I think that you should adopt a particular ideology that largely agrees with mine because it is a more rational and less unjustifiably misanthropic ideology than the one you in fact hold. I never said anything to the effect of Trump or fascists only ever winning because of stupid people, and to do so would be to reduce to the point of absurdity the number of factors at play in the rise of fascists to power. Also, who is 'you people' and who are 'we' or 'they' mongering hate against? I know that I personally am far more concerned with a system of social and material relations between people than I am in demonising any particular group on the basis of immutable facts about themselves; in fact I would say that I am not at all concerned for the latter, though based on your arguments can you really say the same of yourself? From all I've heard you say I can only imagine that for example if you were in a comparable situation as in Russia in 1917 you'd probably have sided with the White Guard and tried to reinstate a Tsarist autocracy. When push comes to shove I can only ever see your position devolving into support for the worst kind of despotic regimes the world has known, because it seems more likely to me that you would prioritise more highly being a dampener on progress than an enforcer of whatever few positive rights you claim yet to champion.
alephy
Oct 19, 20 at 2:51pm
I'm mainly a logical nihilist. I'm not a full blown nihilist. Just a little n nihilist. I won't argue the nihilistic perspective. As that will likely cause a lot of pain and confusion. Therefore, I will debate the subjectivity of morality from more of a humanistic perspective and not from my nihilistic side. Your stated that, "as far as morals being subjective, ill ask this is unnecessary murder ever morally justified? turning it into a hypothetical, timmy goes outside and sees sally, he walks up to her and guts her with a hunting knife. sally was 5 years old and playing dollies. is a grown man murdering an innocent child not objectively immoral?" To answer your question. Is unnecessary murder ever morally justified? Under my moral system. Not, it is not. You gave a hypothetical scenario about an unnecessary murder. I think your argument is as follows. Because unnecessary murder is objectively wrong under some X moral system. Morality is therefore objective. You found a specific element in your morality i.e. unnecessary murder. Where unnecessary murder is viewed as objectively wrong. The question then arises. Under what moral system can unnecessary murder be justified? Under the extreme radical morality of Wahhabism. What is Wahhabism? Wahhabism is an extreme ultraconservative, fundamentalist part of Sunni Islam. Think of ISIS. Think of the 9/11 hijackers. Before I get taken out of context. Under my moral system. I do not think that the 9/11 hijackers were morally justified. What about the moral system of Wahhabism? The 9/11 hijackers felt morality justified by the extreme morality of Wahhabism. Which in turn shows the subjective nature of morality. A moral truth is definitely true within your moral system. But that moral truth may not be true within another moral system. If morality was indeed truly objective. Then regardless of what moral system you choose. Unnecessary murders would always be deemed unjustifiable. But unnecessary murders like the killing of innocent people are justified in other moral systems. I'll reiterate, so I don't get taken out of context. Under my moral system. The actions of extreme fundamentalist Muslims are not morally justified. But under the the moral system of Wahhabism. Some unnecessary murders are justified within the moral system of Wahhabism. Not everyone follows the same moral compass. Different cultures, societies, religions follow different moralities. There is no objectively true morality. Because so many moral systems exist. Not everyone follows the same morality. Morality is ultimately subjective. You can argue that some moral systems are better then others. Which I completely agree on. I think that Wahhabism is an extremely dumb moral system that deduces its morals from some unknown invisible man in the sky. The practitioners of Wahhabism probably wouldn't mind killing me. I really have to be careful in the crafting of my words. Just so that things are clear with this subject. Shit doesn't taken out of context. I do not think that all Muslims are evil. Just the extremists sides of religion. Like the fundamentalist Christians that blow up abortion clinics. People abide by different moralities. Because so many moral systems exist. Not everyone follows the same morality. Morality is subjective not bound by one ultimate truth. @momoichi
nebelstern
I won't continue the discussion. But I'll point out some things. I give it to you regarding the Russia. You placed points I shall take into consideration when I read about Russian history. Thanks. Tito was the only Socialist I can respect. He actually pacified ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavian territory and adopted a different economical approach compatible with the Soviet Union's demands and his own views, while maintaining a small fraction of Orthodoxy. All in all, he is flexible. His only problem was binding Yugoslavia's political stability projected on himself, making it fall into chaos shortly after his death. Besides, I mentioned Iberians and Anglo-Saxons because both ACTUALLY have different cultures and institutions. We may not be Iberian, but we've been brought up by Iberians as a Nation. But I agree that ethnicities have different aims, cultures and goals than others. Not for the sake of ethnicity, but out of upbringing.r That would evolve into a philosophical discussion, something I am not ready for at my current state. Needless to say I am most definitely not a Rationalist nor an Ideologue as I abhor both. Besides, you cannot pin something I don't have, that is, an Ideology. There was no moral side between the Red and White Guards. Period. Well, so long you keep your progressive crap out of my country... we are on good terms at least on my behalf. At least it's minus a country I shall visit in the future. To the contention zone with progressives! May each dog (country, that is) lick their own dick.
psi_one
Oct 19, 20 at 8:30pm
Philosophy and political stuff is my weakness but I will say my input using science. We know and have already proven that absolutes in this universe exist because every element has the exact same number of protons so it is an absolute that we know. Speed of light is a constant though it changes our perspective relative to it, it is always the same speed. There are others but I'll leave those examples. Thus with actual absolutes existing in the known universe we can be sure absolutes do exist.
songofsisyphus
@psi_one Scientific method and empiricism ultimately stem from philosophy, more broadly speaking, and so do not exist above it, although I am very pleased with their broad descriptive potential as a process of interpreting and explaining the material world. However, it would appear that the speed of light may well have varied in the Big Bang, as Variable Speed of Light models of the Big Bang suggest (though I admit I've not kept up with the field in any respect since I last read about those). That the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same speed is most certainly an assumption that we are making, which may or may not be true, and for all we know, at some unknown point in the future the speed of light in a vacuum may well change, throwing out the previous model we had used to understand the universe; assumptions are violated all the time with scientific models that are consequently invalidated (though mercifully in that particular case not just us but also the entire species would probably be long dead by the time that happened and so unable to suffer the necessary consequences of that particular event). Regarding elements, an element is not an absolute or a fundamental category; under different conditions, an element will behave in different ways, and we have defined different elements with respect to each other based on observed behaviour and structure. Even a particular element has different isotopes, which vary with regards to the degree of radioactivity they exhibit. Protons are also not an absolute, and they can change into other particles through radioactive processes, as well as being described by our contemporary theory (if I recall correctly) as being composite objects of yet more supposedly fundamental particles, quarks. 'Proton' is a particular label that we assign to subatomic particles that behave in a particular way, and 'Neutron' is a particular label that we assign to subatomic particles that are observed to behave in another particular way. There are many scientists, particularly in the realm of Physics, who run up against the limitations of the scientific method with regards to finding absolute truth quite often, and this is not a condemnation of the scientific method, because it is a very useful process, but a final answer to metaphysics and cosmology it is not, because not only are there simply some things about the nature of the universe that cannot be tested empirically, the purpose of the scientific method is not in and of itself to establish absolute truths about the universe - rather, through reason and experimentation devise ways of describing the universe and the world around us that conform to testable hypotheses. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to assert that there are directly observable absolutes existing in the known universe, hence it is not possible to assert empirically (at this stage, I might well be proven wrong, but you never know) that absolutes exist.
cero
Cero @cero commented on debate
Oct 21, 20 at 3:18pm
This account has been suspended.
alephy
Oct 21, 20 at 3:28pm
Yes, technically the scientific method is empirical, but the modern scientific method is far removed from philosophy. As no philosophers are doing experiments in the lab to test some hypothetical metaphysics of the universe. No physicist is only taking someone else's logic and reason to validate a hypothesis without experiment. Unlike philosophical models, which cannot be assigned a numbered probabilistic truth. Physics models can be assigned a numbered probabilistic truth. Like the model of the Higgs Boson. Which was labeled a scientific discovery at 5-sigma or a 99.9999% certainty to absolute truth. That sigma level has only gone up since its discovery. As far I know. No philosophical model can ascertain a 5-sigma or a 99.9999% certainty to absolute truth. The speed of light is not simply an assumption. A hypothesis is an assumption. Once the hypothesis gets tested n number of times and it is deemed that the the hypothesis fits with a high probability to experiment. The hypothesis becomes a scientific law. A scientific theory and a scientific law are one and the same. Some people might think because it is named theory. It must be highly susceptible to being untrue. Which is simply not true. A theory is the highest order of truth in science. A believe that Quantum electrodynamics has been tested to "within 10 parts in a billion [10^(−8)]." In order for the theory to be 100% absolutely true. We must have infinite precision. There is no absolute truth in science. But that infinite precision is negligible when you get to such high levels of precision. As far as a variable speed of light. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. Though it is not really a problem. As C (constant for the speed of light) is mathematically defined to be a constant. This might be kinda hard to describe and get across easily. Under the current scientific definition. One takes some X element's atomic transition as a unit of time. The meter is defined as the distance travelled by light over the X element's atomic transition. Even if the speed of light varies. It is mathematically defined as a constant by the definition of the meter. The variation is taken care of by the definition of a system of units. It would really funky redefining C as a variable. C as derivative over time perhaps? As you would have to rewrite Maxwell's and Einstein's equations. There is no observable evidence that protons decay radioactively. Protons are extremely stable. There are hypothesis out there that put out the half life of protons at some insane astronomical number. But those numbers are so astronomical. That they are basically untestable. You are not going to see random proton decay in your everyday life. As far as directly observable absolutes. There are directly observable absolutes. We observe the universe all the time. Scientific theories are tested through observation. We know particles and waves exist through observation. The mear fact that photons enter your eye is simple human observation. There is a distinction between an observation and truth. It think you meant absolute truths for the universe. One can absolutely measure a physical phenomena. Though one cannot deduce absolute truth from that phenomena. There are directly observable absolutes for the universe. But no absolute truths for the universe. Apart from mathematical truths. Which are independent from the universe. @songofsisyphus
songofsisyphus
@alephy Clarification: I was not referring to Proton Decay, I was thinking of positron emission from inside the nucleus (wherein a proton does indeed result in a neutron, among its other products). But I did not think to specify so it makes sense that you would jump to Proton Decay, which I do not contest is still highly theoretical and has not been observed. I am not arguing against the ability to measure physical phenomena (though I suppose I could try to if I wanted to go really radically sceptic, but that's not super helpful and would give everyone including me a headache). It is possible that in saying "directly observable absolutes" I was referring to what you would describe as 'absolute truths', or perhaps 'absolute objects' or 'absolute ontological categories'. I take no issue with the concept of mathematical absolutes existing conceptually as those are a different thing entirely, and as you say, they do not exist directly in the world (and I would go even further and say that even among mathematical truths, these depend on the set of axioms you approach with). There could well be absolute truths, categories, or objects of the universe, but if there are then we cannot empirically test them, and so lay outside the realm of the scientific method. It seems we largely agree, if I'm reading you correctly.
alephy
Oct 22, 20 at 3:29am
I just wanted to make the distinction between positron emission and proton decay. Positron emission is a radioactive process. Where particles within the nucleous change from one particle to another. The proton isn't subdivided into it's more fundamental parts. It changes from one particle to another. It is conservation of mass and energy. Yes, all math truths are dependant on axioms. An axiom in math is the most fundamental trivial truth. It is wholly independent from the universe. @songofsisyphus
Continue
Please login to post.