roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

I could post a load of stuff about art or philosophy etc, but it would go right over your heads.

I doubt it.

I was being somewhat satirical. But it’s true to say: “I could post a load of stuff about art or philosophy etc, but very few posters here would find it interesting. This is essentially a general chat forum, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Just because we generally chat, doesn’t mean we aren’t interested or cannot discuss what is offered to discuss.

I’ll give it a start.

We (humans) are obviously social animals, but we’re also individuals. Hegel argues that we’re members of society first and individuals second; Kant disagrees, arguing that we’re individuals first and members of society second.

The main problem I’ve got with Hegel’s view is that we become subject to the will of the State, although we have no guidance as to who should represent the State. Plato suggests (in The Republic) that we should develop several castes or classes, with the Guardians the rulers. A second class, Soldiers, as the name suggests, act as soldiers during war and police during peace. Everybody else is a Producer. Each individual is born into his or her position in Society, and trained specifically for the job they’re destined for. This seems somewhat shallow to me: abilities and skills (techne in ancient Greek) often don’t manifest until after a child’s education has begun – and often not until much later – and it’s quite common for a child’s abilities and interests to be very different to his or her parents’. Some of the best dystopian fiction involves taking the Hegelian premise to extremes (eg Nineteen-Eighty-Four and Brave New World to name the two best-known), with a privileged few as the rulers. If Hegel’s view is accepted, and we can find some way to choose rulers, it seems to me we must accept (without question) things like conscription. The idea that the State can imprison individuals also seems to me to be a Hegelian viewpoint: the State claims “ownership”, as it were, of the body of the imprisoned individual, whether criminal or otherwise (asylum seekers, for example.)

The Hegelian viewpoint also seems to me to require a State-run social support system, such as Unemployment Support, State-funded Healthcare, and Retirement benefits: if we’re all primarily members of society, our duty is to support our fellow-members. The Nazis claimed to be building a Hegelian society.

The Kantian view, au Cointreau, would mean that everyone’s primary responsibility was to him- or her-self, with others a lower priority. To me this seems to justify making as much money as we can by fair means or foul: if we’re individuals first, Society isn’t going to be concerned with us, so we need to grab as much as we can. Politically, I think Kant’s view requires anarchy, because each individual would reject any form of control or oversight, and Society would have no right to impose it. I think contemporary views of “individual freedom” are predicated on the Kantian view.

Any discussion?

So then, (using your way of looking at it and nothing else), it seems that a purely Hegelian point of view will give us a socialist state, whereas a pure Kantian philosophy will give us a capitalist state.

As our state is a combination of the two (and many other states also are), then perhaps the two are intertwined, or the question is illegitimate.

That is, most of us are neither purely Hegelian (members of society first and individuals second); nor purely Kantian (individuals first and members of society second).

Wocky said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being somewhat satirical. But it’s true to say: “I could post a load of stuff about art or philosophy etc, but very few posters here would find it interesting. This is essentially a general chat forum, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Just because we generally chat, doesn’t mean we aren’t interested or cannot discuss what is offered to discuss.

I’ll give it a start.

We (humans) are obviously social animals, but we’re also individuals. Hegel argues that we’re members of society first and individuals second; Kant disagrees, arguing that we’re individuals first and members of society second.

The main problem I’ve got with Hegel’s view is that we become subject to the will of the State, although we have no guidance as to who should represent the State. Plato suggests (in The Republic) that we should develop several castes or classes, with the Guardians the rulers. A second class, Soldiers, as the name suggests, act as soldiers during war and police during peace. Everybody else is a Producer. Each individual is born into his or her position in Society, and trained specifically for the job they’re destined for. This seems somewhat shallow to me: abilities and skills (techne in ancient Greek) often don’t manifest until after a child’s education has begun – and often not until much later – and it’s quite common for a child’s abilities and interests to be very different to his or her parents’. Some of the best dystopian fiction involves taking the Hegelian premise to extremes (eg Nineteen-Eighty-Four and Brave New World to name the two best-known), with a privileged few as the rulers. If Hegel’s view is accepted, and we can find some way to choose rulers, it seems to me we must accept (without question) things like conscription. The idea that the State can imprison individuals also seems to me to be a Hegelian viewpoint: the State claims “ownership”, as it were, of the body of the imprisoned individual, whether criminal or otherwise (asylum seekers, for example.)

The Hegelian viewpoint also seems to me to require a State-run social support system, such as Unemployment Support, State-funded Healthcare, and Retirement benefits: if we’re all primarily members of society, our duty is to support our fellow-members. The Nazis claimed to be building a Hegelian society.

The Kantian view, au Cointreau, would mean that everyone’s primary responsibility was to him- or her-self, with others a lower priority. To me this seems to justify making as much money as we can by fair means or foul: if we’re individuals first, Society isn’t going to be concerned with us, so we need to grab as much as we can. Politically, I think Kant’s view requires anarchy, because each individual would reject any form of control or oversight, and Society would have no right to impose it. I think contemporary views of “individual freedom” are predicated on the Kantian view.

Any discussion?

i disagree with the term “caste”

no one is born into the role of guardian as such. just because you are born into a family where a ruler resides doesn’t mean in theory that you are guaranteed a golden ticket into the role of ruler. plato had ample knowledge about this kind of problem witnessing it first hand so its doubtful he would encourage this problem. a ruler would be watched carefully throughout their life and encouraging behaviour would naturally lead them into that role as they would be pinged as a “possible” guardian. someone might get a leg up by being in a particular family but plato’s republic is more of a meritocracy – only those fit to rule would be allowed to rule. tony abbot and julia gillard would have been spotted a mile off and never near the reins of power.

i suspect that this is why plato saw democracy as a flawed social system, he had seen the result of pericles twisted democracy and its inevitable result.

it is by no idle chance that plato decided to sit down and write the republic, pericles gains power as first citizen , dictator in all but name, one man declares rules that all that must obey (he disenfranchises athenians who don’t marry other athenians yet asks if its ok his own son by a non athenian gets priviledged status).

the republic to my mind is to my mind given plato’s situation was a very practical of averting disaster as society tends to throw up fools into power when they have no ability to manage society to keep it cohesive and functioning.

exactly how fool proof is our “democracy” when we have no idea who is voting and how many times? the result is that criminals and fools inhabitat the halls of power and things get worse.

roll on the revolution

Wocky said:

We (humans) are obviously social animals, but we’re also individuals. Hegel argues that we’re members of society first and individuals second; Kant disagrees, arguing that we’re individuals first and members of society second.

I think it is to simplistic to think it is either one or the other. All people will have their own ideas on what the obligation of the individual is to society, and vice versa, with the ballot box being the primary method of making one’s views known. Modern societies exhibit aspects of both belief systems.

Michael V said:

So then, (using your way of looking at it and nothing else), it seems that a purely Hegelian point of view will give us a socialist state, whereas a pure Kantian philosophy will give us a capitalist state.

As our state is a combination of the two (and many other states also are), then perhaps the two are intertwined, or the question is illegitimate.

That is, most of us are neither purely Hegelian (members of society first and individuals second); nor purely Kantian (individuals first and members of society second).

I probably should have said that my view is pretty much what you’ve said, although I probably lean slightly toward Kant’s view. Rereading my post I can see that I appear to have made value judgements about the two ideas, too; that wasn’t intended. The presentation of the two diametrically opposed views was deliberate, though.

wookiemeister said:

i disagree with the term “caste”

Feel free to disagree with anything I’ve said. The term “caste”, like “class”, is an attempt to translate from Plato’s original ancient Greek to modern English. Neither word is perfect, but both approximate it.

wookiemeister said:

no one is born into the role of guardian as such. just because you are born into a family where a ruler resides doesn’t mean in theory that you are guaranteed a golden ticket into the role of ruler.

I’m not suggesting anything else, but I am reporting what Plato said. I don’t agree with him, as I said in my post.

wookiemeister said:

plato had ample knowledge about this kind of problem witnessing it first hand so its doubtful he would encourage this problem. a ruler would be watched carefully throughout their life and encouraging behaviour would naturally lead them into that role as they would be pinged as a “possible” guardian. someone might get a leg up by being in a particular family but plato’s republic is more of a meritocracy – only those fit to rule would be allowed to rule. tony abbot and julia gillard would have been spotted a mile off and never near the reins of power.

This indicates that you’ve never actually read The Republic. Plato discusses movement between classes, but it’s to be the exception rather than the rule. The society he described was certainly not a meritocracy.
wookiemeister said:

i suspect that this is why plato saw democracy as a flawed social system, he had seen the result of pericles twisted democracy and its inevitable result.

The society Plato described was based in part on the society of the Spartans, with whom Plato lived during the seven years he was exiled from Athens.

This indicates that you’ve never actually read The Republic. Plato discusses movement between classes, but it’s to be the exception rather than the rule. The society he described was certainly not a meritocracy.
=

read the history of his life not the republic it is there that you see what is going on

he also talks about people being demoted and promoted based on ability, i don’t see how this rigid structure will hold firm in the face of necessity of preserving the state.

wookiemeister said:

This indicates that you’ve never actually read The Republic. Plato discusses movement between classes, but it’s to be the exception rather than the rule. The society he described was certainly not a meritocracy.
=

read the history of his life not the republic it is there that you see what is going on

he also talks about people being demoted and promoted based on ability, i don’t see how this rigid structure will hold firm in the face of necessity of preserving the state.

ok

think of it this way

macbeth for example

shakespeare has chosen macbeth to write about but its awfully unusual

king duncan that greedy dickhead in real life actually went against society and decided to install his son into the position as heir

macbeth quite rightly thought this was very silly as all kings were VOTED into the position

shakespeare doens’t this mention in the play AT ANY POINT

taken in context that shakespeare would have KNOWN this means that to interpret a book you can’t just look in the pages for an answer or meaning

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

This indicates that you’ve never actually read The Republic. Plato discusses movement between classes, but it’s to be the exception rather than the rule. The society he described was certainly not a meritocracy.
=

read the history of his life not the republic it is there that you see what is going on

he also talks about people being demoted and promoted based on ability, i don’t see how this rigid structure will hold firm in the face of necessity of preserving the state.

ok

think of it this way

macbeth for example

shakespeare has chosen macbeth to write about but its awfully unusual

king duncan that greedy dickhead in real life actually went against society and decided to install his son into the position as heir

macbeth quite rightly thought this was very silly as all kings were VOTED into the position

shakespeare doens’t this mention in the play AT ANY POINT

taken in context that shakespeare would have KNOWN this means that to interpret a book you can’t just look in the pages for an answer or meaning

books have to be taken within context, marx might have written the manifesto and come up with various theories BUT he died a pauper.

it might interest you to know that the hari krishnas also believe in platos idea of a three tiered society to a degree

in hari krishna society

you have

the priests aka the rulers
the soldiers
the peasants aka the producers

the soldiers have the mandate to kill when ordered to by the priests

the rational is that the priests know when someone is going against krishna. if you go against krishna then it means in the next life you’ll come back at a lower level, therefore by killing the enemy in this life you are actually showing compassion to the enemy and doing them a favour because if judgement is administered in this life then it means they won;t come back at a lower level.