I am now a double drop-out

[Husar]

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

I believe it was the grand philosopher @Husar who once said in this very same subforum that humans just aren't fit to organise themselves in large societies. We are still not much more than cavemen. Cavemen with smartphones.

I have probably said that somewhere between a lot of sarcasm. It was the great googler @Lemur who once linked us to information about the Monkeysphere, an explanation of which can be found here.

Now I have never forgotten about the Monkeysphere because I think the more we are aware of it, the more we can attempt to mitigate its implications and work towards a working OWG. The natural restriction is just something we need to get out of the way just like our natural inability to fly...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

[Andres]

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

With that part of your post, you highlight one of the problems I have with a lot of philosophers. When confronted with critique, they play word games and attribute meanings to certain words that they do not have in the normal use of language. With a bit of good will, you can see a similarity with the tension "ivory tower academic - real world practician".

You can twist words as much as you want, but the word contract implies agreement. Sure, you can have a valid contract between parties in a different position of power, but the difference between those exercising power and those not is so large, that the powerful is capable of simply imposing his will on the other party so that the other party no longer has a free will and can no longer agree. If the ruled one disagrees, the ruling one will either force him to agree or eliminate him.

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

The only interest the ruling class has, is to rule.

From what I remember of that part of the introductions to various branches of philosophy we got, I'd dare say postmodernists mostly play word games nobody truly gets and therefore, they are the worst kind of philosophers. Most of them would've better quoted Wittgenstein "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and should've stopped right there.

Luckily, the present day postmodernist no longer has to write his essays himself; it suffices to click this link.

[Montmorency]

people would indeed accurately assess what their fare share is.

But what does that really mean? I just don't suppose it's possible - or perhaps it doesn't even make conceptual sense in the first place.

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

But as I hinted, what's to stop the cycle from swinging back in the direction of centralization. It's not conceivable to me how in a return to such a lifestyle we could retain most of the technological innovation from the past three-or-four hundred years. Coupled with the attendant loss of historical awareness that I think would follow, it would be not too much different than Sisyphus being pushed back a few meters. Also, don't forget that such a transition would entail the deaths of hundreds of millions of moderns. I just can't see a scenario where this process moves along without a nuclear exchange between nations occurring at some point.

Cheating on taxes is a national sport in Belgium...

I'll take the easy way out and say that most people (generally speaking) are socialized toward disapproval of: considering the police as "pigs"; shooting at representatives of the national postal service or census bureau; questioning the basic legitimacy of law in general (while taking their own state as a democracy).

And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power?

Well, let's take "coercive power" as the ability to obtain concessions from a group or individual by the explicit or implicit (i.e. the 'victim' perceives a threat and/or knows of the coercer's capacities) resort to threat toward the 'victim's' person or economic status. In that case, yes, the media and large corporations can be included. But the means matter; only governments - corporations in the West are excluded here - have coercive power backed by destructive force toward the implementation of threats. Though on that note, for some countries it is indeed the case that the Mafia are major wielders of coercive power.

You won't delude the ruling class.

They're not actually all that brilliant, if you ask me.

You make people believe they agreed to slavery.

But I'll say it as I have said elsewhere on the board: the bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see.

[Husar]

Sounds like the system is working just fine.

[Kralizec]

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

Your idea of the social contract is slightly off.

It has been defined differently by various philosphers, but generally speaking it amounts to: why do people submit themselves to laws? Why should they respect them? (other than that God told them to; that was getting old)

The reason is that an existence without laws is a terrible one, and that people voluntarily agree to be constrained by law because they're generally better off that way. Of course, you'd need to have an authority to enforce said laws, too. Locke viewed the social contract as an agreement between the people and the government. Most other philosophers stressed that it's foremost a contract between the people.

Granted; it's a fiction and the guys who theorized about this were aware of that. But if a bunch of people got stranded on a remote island it's perfectly plausible that it would work out just that way, and it's a valid reason to justify the obligation to respect the law.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

I get your point. While I was "parsing" things a bit, the intent was not to obfuscate. "We get the government we deserve" through such "contracts." Those in power tend to want to reify that power -- no surprise there.

For me, the most beautiful words regarding government were those that begat my country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Everybody always trots out the first of these three sentences, but the second two are as, and arguably more, important.

[Ironside]

I'm a year into an English literature course and i still dont know what post modernism is.

The shortest version: It's to challenge your preconceptions. What is art? Does it change on context? (Yes). In literature: Deconstruction, Meta concepts, etc are port-modernism.

Since it's oldish most of the good stuff coming from that has been mined out already.

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

Those who find it absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else is called "my way or the highway" people. Try getting 3-4 of these to cooperate. Even most people who prefer to rule can accept getting ruled depending on the circumstances. It's an essential skill for a cooperative species.

Most of people prefer to be ruled because it's easier. Some never wants to rule, some only takes over a power vacuum or only rules when it interests them. The social contract basically boils down to what those who prefer to be ruled can accept, comparing to either being in power or trying to ursurp the power.

Rule 3 people and they won't accept that you don't do any work outside the planning. Rule 1000 people and most of them will accept that delegation.

Pay your taxes or try to rebel and survive the cutthroat hell if the rebellion is won.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why is it that those who campaign against the elites and ruling class act so much like those they claim to hate?

Skewing the public as ignorant, deluded individuals who don't realize the wool has been pulled over them and the ruling class as intellectual ubermench is the height of elitist.

It's impossible for someone to rationalize that to live under a democratic government with a fair share of flaws is better than my deconstructed-reconstructed enlightened society, they must all be stupid and don't understand the concept of liberty.

[Furunculus]

Who let you into higher education as a high school dropout?

a good friend of mine went to uni with me at the grand age of 27 with nothing but half a dozen average o-levels grades (GCSE equivalent but more valuable), and he left with an mENG in software engineering. now a very talented software engineer.

he came from a (welsh) valleys working class family in the seventies that had never sent a kid to uni, and decided to give it a crack after his girlfriend dumped him, his porsche 928 (the cheesy ones) blew up, and he was laid off from his PVC window factory job. i believe it's called social mobility. ;)

not having four A* a-levels is not necessarily any good reason for a Uni to turn down a good candidate.

on the other hand, sadly as seems the case with the big H, the uni is not always worthy of the talent of its students.

[HoreTore]

Actually, the reason I got into higher education without completing high school is because I did what you spend three years doing in about a week and a half.

I did the exams of every subject instead of following classes. I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them), the other half I did half-drunk a year later.

[The Stranger]

you are absolutely brilliant.

[Husar]

I'm far from an A* student myself, I was just surprised how a dropout could get into higher education given that if you tried that here you'd hit an indestructible beaureaucratic wall that would bar you from entering unless you could show the necessary papers.

And I see that you did indeed get the necessary papers. My world view has been saved.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them)...

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... I did half of them to get away from military service(the part called "mønstring" in Norwegian, not sure what it's called in english; it's when you have to line every item the platoon has for some idiot to count them)...

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

[HoreTore]

Either referred to as an inspection or, somewhat dismissively, as a chickens**t exercise.

I remember when we found a box of empty magazines. I jokingly asked the sergeant whether we should line all the magazines individually, or just line the boxes. His answer was to "cut silly questions". We should line the boxes.

An hour or so later, we got ordered to line each magazine individually.... That was fun!

The oral exam I had that week actually only took half an hour. Strangely, I was missing the entire day...