BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > After Sunset > Philosophy

Philosophy Any non-religious philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2013, 03:32 AM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 804
Default The 2013 Philosophical Season

Throughout history there have been certain major Philosophical/Political steps taken, ideas which were revolutionary, but at the same time were the product of generations of observation and thought.

It is the responsibility of those with thinking minds to prepare ideas for the philosophers of the future. You will help.

During this season I intend to examine the relationship between the individual and the collective. This includes the relationship between the citizen and the government.

In addition to the examination, I intend to explore the future in terms of what good things it could be, to include which new social values will need to be instilled in order to best benefit the individual and the collective.

More information will follow closer to the equinox.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-17-2013, 01:14 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

I'm looking forward to it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2013, 02:07 AM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,211
Default

We haven't had a nice discussion on philosophy in awhile.

Looking forward also.

Txanne
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-18-2013, 02:24 PM
whitehairedidiot Female whitehairedidiot is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,523
Default

This sounds most interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2013, 04:40 PM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 804
Default

Before we begin we will need to be aware of a few pitfalls:

Left/right conflict. Rise above it. It is an interesting thing to examine, but if you see things in terms of the one dimensional left/right conflict you will ignore multi-dimensional reality.

Ignorance of time. All things take place in time. causes have effects that take place after the cause happens. Things that are were not always so. things that are now will not always be so.

Isolation of events. The world is not an engine that you can stop and disassemble. It is a system that must be examined while it is running. You cannot isolate one part and make a change without sending that change rippling through the rest of the system. Similarly, you cannot discount an idea as useless because it makes a small, subtle change at some remote point in the system. That change may make a huge difference.

Overuse of emotional language. If something is good, it should be explained why. If something is bad, it should also be explained. In any discussion where improving the human condition is the chief aim, simply labeling something "good" or "bad" and moving on without explaining why will derail the whole conversation. No political or social system is without its flaws. Part of this season's objective is to identify those flaws and discuss ways of minimizing them.

and chiefly:
Adding unnecessary baggage to simple terms. Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" have straightforward dictionary definitions. When used alone, those dictionary descriptions should be used. Adding personal prejudice against or for a whole idea because of a minor variation somewhere will cause problems in discussion if the simple term is used. High-school level litanies should be left in high school: "socialism is bad because of socialism" or "all capitalists are greedy" have no place in a reasoned discussion. No political system in the world practices a pure form of any -ism, and if a particular brand of that -ism is intended, say so. Use a term like Maoism or US style capitalism of such an idea is meant.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2013, 01:31 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

Darn, now I will really have to think.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:48 AM
whitehairedidiot Female whitehairedidiot is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,523
Default

Well - the concepts of the rights of an individual versus the rights of the collective definitely transcend political ideologies. It's more basic than left or right categories and beliefs.

The relationship - I guess you could also say the "balance" - between ind/collective - goes beyond just a discussion of rights - to responsibility, trust, respect... just to name a few relationship terms. That's not a complete list.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:30 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

This may sound like a stupid question but why would the rights of collective be any different then the rights of an individual. It sort of reminds me of the saying, "united we stand , divided we fall "
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2013, 01:30 AM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 804
Default

There are people who say that collectives(including governments) don't have rights, but they have powers. It will be an interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2013, 02:27 AM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 804
Default

You can change the future.

Locke, Hegel, Marx, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, did not exist in a vacuum. While these were thinkers who changed the relationship between the individual and his government, They were using the wisdom that was available to them. Between these greats there were generations plodding away, repeating the knowledge of the past, thinking new thoughts here and there, but not making significant advances. We appear to be between great thinkers now. The last Major thinker was Marx, and we know that it turned out badly for the doomed millions who followed his lead. Among the intelligent, the words of our founding fathers are quoted again and again. These men in turn quoted Locke and turned his essays into a republic. So Locke was our last great Philosopher.

Rather than wait several more generations of false starts and idle chatter, I suggest making a targeted effort to advance the wisdom we have to its apex in preparation for the next major socio-political advance.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:43 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macgeoghagen View Post
You can change the future.

Locke, Hegel, Marx, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, did not exist in a vacuum. While these were thinkers who changed the relationship between the individual and his government, They were using the wisdom that was available to them. Between these greats there were generations plodding away, repeating the knowledge of the past, thinking new thoughts here and there, but not making significant advances. We appear to be between great thinkers now. The last Major thinker was Marx, and we know that it turned out badly for the doomed millions who followed his lead. Among the intelligent, the words of our founding fathers are quoted again and again. These men in turn quoted Locke and turned his essays into a republic. So Locke was our last great Philosopher.

Rather than wait several more generations of false starts and idle chatter, I suggest making a targeted effort to advance the wisdom we have to its apex in preparation for the next major socio-political advance.
I don't think my heart can handle another major socio-political advance. It seems that just when I learn the rules of the game, they change the rules on me. How can I be a team player when I'm never sure what team I'm on ?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:44 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macgeoghagen View Post
You can change the future.

Locke, Hegel, Marx, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, did not exist in a vacuum. While these were thinkers who changed the relationship between the individual and his government, They were using the wisdom that was available to them. Between these greats there were generations plodding away, repeating the knowledge of the past, thinking new thoughts here and there, but not making significant advances. We appear to be between great thinkers now. The last Major thinker was Marx, and we know that it turned out badly for the doomed millions who followed his lead. Among the intelligent, the words of our founding fathers are quoted again and again. These men in turn quoted Locke and turned his essays into a republic. So Locke was our last great Philosopher.

Rather than wait several more generations of false starts and idle chatter, I suggest making a targeted effort to advance the wisdom we have to its apex in preparation for the next major socio-political advance.
I don't think my heart can handle another major socio-political advance. It seems that just when I learn the rules of the game, they change the rules on me. How can I be a team player when I'm never sure what team I'm on ?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:17 AM
whitehairedidiot Female whitehairedidiot is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,523
Default

I just got done illustrating how collectives only have the power alloted to them by individuals, with a couple short videos (courtesy of Claire's blog and another forum). It's in another topic in this sub-forum - "what is a citizen". I'm a strong believer in this concept, as applied in a lot of situations.

There is agreement; a trust relationship even; when individuals transfer power to the collective. The trust consists of power being used to the benefit of the "common good" of individuals. Like traffic laws... national security. This works pretty well - or it did - until people forget the original terms of the agreement.

The philosophies that informed the original agreement came from the enlightenment philosophers: Burke, Locke, Rousseau... and others. And their ideas were informed by... etc.

I would suggest that since human nature - being reasonably consistent over centuries and eras - can only be "improved upon" or able to transform and evolve only through individual choice and effort - that it's not a "new idea" that's needed. Rather, what is pure, good, and universal of the stock of historical ideas can be re-molded, shown to be relevant in our (ironically) "new and improved post-modern, post-history, post- ?" day and age.

Last edited by whitehairedidiot; 02-23-2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason: missing word
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:15 PM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macgeoghagen View Post
Throughout history there have been certain major Philosophical/Political steps taken, ideas which were revolutionary, but at the same time were the product of generations of observation and thought.

It is the responsibility of those with thinking minds to prepare ideas for the philosophers of the future. You will help.

During this season I intend to examine the relationship between the individual and the collective. This includes the relationship between the citizen and the government.

In addition to the examination, I intend to explore the future in terms of what good things it could be, to include which new social values will need to be instilled in order to best benefit the individual and the collective.

More information will follow closer to the equinox.

How do we get past the moral corruption of this generation---to have this utopia society?
I find a small percentage seek moral hign grounds while society as a whole defile and corrupt themselves as a whole.
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:20 PM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macgeoghagen View Post
You can change the future.

Locke, Hegel, Marx, Jefferson, Plato, Socrates, did not exist in a vacuum. While these were thinkers who changed the relationship between the individual and his government, They were using the wisdom that was available to them. Between these greats there were generations plodding away, repeating the knowledge of the past, thinking new thoughts here and there, but not making significant advances. We appear to be between great thinkers now. The last Major thinker was Marx, and we know that it turned out badly for the doomed millions who followed his lead. Among the intelligent, the words of our founding fathers are quoted again and again. These men in turn quoted Locke and turned his essays into a republic. So Locke was our last great Philosopher.

Rather than wait several more generations of false starts and idle chatter, I suggest making a targeted effort to advance the wisdom we have to its apex in preparation for the next major socio-political advance.
I ponder how we include (politics) and at the same time include wisdom.(Or morals for that matter)
Our founding Fathers didnt have access to lobbyist/billons of dollars/media and so therefore their wisdom gained them status as our voices..

I often think of them as purist when it came to this country and its needs.
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-26-2013, 01:26 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

After reading some history about our founding fathers I believe they did have lobbyist only they weren't called that. And the politics from the get go was as dirty or worse as it is today. As individuals our founding fathers could be called purist but after them the rest were scum bags.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-26-2013, 02:21 PM
whitehairedidiot Female whitehairedidiot is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,523
Default

Ben Franklin did pretty good for himself and his family, being involved with the other founders...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-26-2013, 03:24 PM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by offgridbob View Post
After reading some history about our founding fathers I believe they did have lobbyist only they weren't called that. And the politics from the get go was as dirty or worse as it is today. As individuals our founding fathers could be called purist but after them the rest were scum bags.
Maybe thats because there was fewer of'em?
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:53 AM
MollyPitcher's Avatar
MollyPitcher Female MollyPitcher is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Between DFW and the Red River
Posts: 1,603
Default

Maybe because many of the founders did pledge and use their personal income, sacrificed their families, and lost a great deal during the fight against the tyranny of King George. They fought for something they believed strongly was right--read any of Washington's personal 'journals' as we would call them today. He believed on the deepest personal level that their cause was just.

Maybe those who came after, Jackson being probably the first significant example to come to mind, did not have to literally risk their lives for what they believed in. The founders would all have been transported and hanged had they actually been captured ( ex.Nathan Hale).

Sounds trite, but it might be a partial explanation. Those whose lives were not literally at risk might not have to be so moral or ethical.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:22 PM
333's Avatar
333 333 is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,647
Default

Peace,

Nice to see a pleasant discourse......wish I had more time to attend.

I too find it difficult to reconcile the individual with the collective, as I am of the philosophy that I must do whats best for me and mine before I can even consider helping others.

333
__________________
"Those that would sacrifice Liberty for a little security and safety, deserve neither and will likely lose both." - B. Franklin

"It is reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction". -John Locke
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 01:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.