I am now a double drop-out

[CrossLOPER]

luckily nobody takes you serious either ;)

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

[Sarmatian]

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

I thought Frags was an .org exclusive, like our own flagship console title... Are you telling me he went cross-platform?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I thought Frags was an .org exclusive, like our own flagship console title... Are you telling me he went cross-platform?

Clearly you haven't been keeping yourself up to date with the latest Fragony developments. Now I will not pretend that I am fully up to date either, but I do recall that at the very least a My Little Pony edition has been tried -- and was swiftly banned.

[Fragony]

Doesn't stop him from endlessly trolling multiple sites for decades.

I post here and on the Dutch site Geenstijl, and that's about it, shut up and kiss me, or just shut your eastblock squarhead

[Greyblades]

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

[Fragony]

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

It's a movement of deconstructing modernism, see it as a reversed renaissance.

[Andres]

I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.

Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.

As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.

Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).

The social contract is an interesting thought experiment, but it can't be a justification for living under the rule of a government.

In fact, imo, there's nothing "contract" about a large group of people living under the rule of a small ruling class.

To illustrate how absurd the idea is that being ruled by a government is the result of some sort of agreement between all parties involved, I'll just quote Proudhon:

To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. And to think that there are democrats among us who pretend that there is any good in government; Socialists who support this ignominy, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; proletarians who proclaim their candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic! Hypocrisy! ...

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

[Fragony]

Post-modernism doesn't mean the same thing in literature, post-modernism is a period politically speaking. In literature it's a departure from 'classical' literature that owed it's legitimacy to the it's throwback on classical literature, the sctructure and themes changed. Modernism is a confusing word as it has nothing to do with anything we consider te be modern. Basicly, ancient style in everything, building styles, literatere, poetry, it all grasped back. Post-modernism is a departure from that. There are people that will absolutily disagree with this and link the period to the artstyle (all) and be mean to me. This is just one of the many viewpoints.

@Greyblades. Hope it helps.

[HoreTore]

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

[Andres]

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

[HoreTore]

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

Is it absurd that we are forced to eat as well?

[Montmorency]

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

[Andres]

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

[HoreTore]

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

[Andres]

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

In an ideal world, we would govern ourselves in mutual agreement.

But there will always be people who can't govern themselves and there will always be some who want to play boss. The worst people are those who belong in both those categories simultaneously.

Unfortunately, the majority of us hasn't evolved far enough to be able to live without somebody else telling them how, when, where and what to do, which makes lives sometimes unbearable for those indeed capable of living without government.

[Andres]

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

[Montmorency]

for those indeed capable of living without government.

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism.

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.

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

[Andres]

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

That's not what I said HoreTore. You are missing my point. The existence of a ruling class isn't necessarily absurd in itself. But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

That's why the idea of a social contract is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment. In reality, it doesn't make sense.

[Montmorency]

But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

[Andres]

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism.

I am indeed talking about some sort of utopian society. Humanity is not ready yet for communism. If we apply communism now, the means of production will be controlled by a bureaucracy that will inevitably become corrupt instead of them now being controlled by capitalist pigs.

The people in power are the problem. They are by definition selfish and greedy bastards making the rest of us miserable.

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

So far, the proporition of self-interest has always been way larger than the other proportion. The ruler should be satisfied with his share, not more than that. Since humans aren't capable of being that altruistic, we'll continue to exist in our current miserable state of greedy and selfish bastards ruling us.

[Andres]

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

That's what I fear. The dominant members can't deny their own nature. They are like that, so they act like that.

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

[Montmorency]

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

The ruler should be satisfied with his share

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

[Montmorency]

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

[Andres]

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

If the majority believes in it, then they are misguided or don't truly understand what they are believing in. They should urgently read my posts in this thread to see the light

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

One thing's for sure: as long as there is a ruling class, the shares won't be fair.

When you enter the state in which there is no more dominance and thus no greed and selfishness, the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

[Montmorency]

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

As in, a social contract is something that can only exist by the virtue of being believed in.

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Whether misguided or not, there is as I said a popular sense of innate authority. That does mitigate the exercise of power or coercion.

the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

But can and could and would people accurately assess what their share should fairly be, assuming that it's possible?

Would everyone else agree with each other's assessment?

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

Well, I'm not sure about this whole "progress" and "advancement" business, unless it includes the wholesale replacement of humanity.

I do think it's necessary for the maintenance of the current world-system and our current (relatively-high) standards of living - otherwise, we'd all just return to small-scale agricultural communalism, and the cycle would turn all over again.

[Andres]

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

Authority?

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

Also, the government is just one body holding power. All power is not exclusively in the hands of governments, that would be a gross misconception. There are plently of other players holding several degrees of power. Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

[Montmorency]

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

[Andres]

As in, a social contract is something that can only exist by the virtue of being believed in.


Whether misguided or not, there is as I said a popular sense of innate authority. That does mitigate the exercise of power or coercion.

The word "misguided" is crucial. There is no free will, when you are misguided. There is no agreement, when one of the parties doesn't have free will. And thus, there is no contract.

But can and could and would people accurately assess what their share should fairly be, assuming that it's possible?

Would everyone else agree with each other's assessment?

We're talking about an utopian society in which people will just take what they need and in which the group will make sure there is enough for everbody.

If you exclude the selfish and the greedy, then nobody will take more. In such an ideal society, people would indeed accurately assess what their fare share is.

But as I said above, we will never achieve that state.

Well, I'm not sure about this whole "progress" and "advancement" business, unless it includes the wholesale replacement of humanity.

I do think it's necessary for the maintenance of the current world-system and our current (relatively-high) standards of living - otherwise, we'd all just return to small-scale agricultural communalism, and the cycle would turn all over again.

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.

[Andres]

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

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

The only reason why most of us don't, is because it's very hard for the little man to cheat on his taxes without getting caught. But most "little men" I know will inform themselves on how to, legally, pay the minimum amount of taxes possible.

I'm not sure if Belgium is representative for the rest of Europe in that regard, but as far as the heart of Europe is concerned, people hate paying taxes and will do everything they can to avoid them without getting caught. Fear of punishment is the main reason why most people don't cheat. The other reason is that most taxes, certainly for employees, are directly taken at the source, so you simply can't avoid them.

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Does it matter if their coercive power is direct or indirect? And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power? It's not always necessary to have a military type waving with a gun to force you to do or not to do something.

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

You can say a lot about the people who are dominant, but they are not stupid. You won't delude the ruling class. It usually goes the other way around.