Poor and Homelessness

[MikeF]

And your disregard for (ignorance of) the importance of art in human culture and society does not diminish that importance. Appreciation is subjective, but the human benefits of art to society is not. Not the least of which is that it enables us to see ourselves through each other's eyes. Which is why the fascists can't tolerate it.

Repeatedly calling me stupid doesn't make it so.

Now I would like to push back on your notion that fascists can't tolerate art or are anti-art. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fascists love art. They just love the right art. The art that delivers the correct message.

We seem to be in agreement that appreciation of any particular work (in whatever form or modality) is subjective. But the arts, in general terms, is simply communication. As such, communication can be both beneficial and detrimental to society. Modes of communication are neither inherently good or bad, they are simply methods by which we can communicate our abstract system of thoughts.

Since you keep bringing up fascists, your issue seems to be more about censorship and freedom of speech concerns, as opposed to preserving or valuing a particular mode of communication.

 

[MikeF]

You are not a "we" and you have no evidence for that. That is what you don't understand. You claim understanding for a "we", that is not there.

Certainly there is a we. There are currently billions of us, and there have been billions more. Go to any big city at lunchtime and I'm sure you can't help but bump into a few of us.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Land is a finite resource. That limit is further constrained by a social desire to preserve a certain amount of that land in a natural state, to remain undeveloped. Then there is the requirement that some portion of land is relegated to food production. Additionally, not all land is equally habitable and not conducive to homesteading.

The other element of the equation is an ever growing population. Your expectation of a plot of land for everyone is simply unrealistic in my view.

Good, land is a finite resource indeed. I never said that the infinite growth model was going to work, but that ideally, those born probably should get some land. But you will run into a growth wall no matter how you package the future. What is your solution to that? No one actually has one. The right probably wants to ban birth control, and the left probably wants to build more low income housing.

I advocate for birth control, and trying to set up culture so people live more in harmony with nature.

Personally I don't know if the philosophy of private property makes sense for agriculture. Everything could be free range and open for hundreds of miles, and then you could get livestock to circulate entire states again. I do wonder for example, about the quality of meat on a 19th century buffalo compared to what we have now.

Both parties also like lots of immigration: the right likes it because immigrants aren't prepared to organize unions, and the left likes them out of mercy, because they often are probably seeking opportunity. It's a complicated problem, in tandem with the idea of perpetual growth. In our case, I don't know why republicans care all that much about the southern border. I think that those crossing often have Christian and family values that the right likes a lot, but then again, they are often Catholic. Maybe that has something to do with it, idk

As to what defines the production value of an individual, it would be the labor market.

That leaves us with education and access to healthcare as society's primary tools for maximizing one's ability to reach their full potential.

There is some kind of resource based problem that comes into play there, if the will of the labor market and the will of education collide. It's not exactly the 'tragedy of the commons,' but it's something like that. For example, what if you have doctor wilson, who went to harvard to study the amazon rainforest. Doctor wilson is like 1 of 1000 people, and he learned about a variety of rare resources in the forest. The other 999 people might want to log it, and put cattle farms on it.

Well it turns out that the world really wants those cattle farms, and that means the labor market wants it, and so why should the labor market listen to a few scientists.

I would first point out that there are factors that limit potential that we can have little or no control over. We cannot control the lottery of the genetic material one is born with. We cannot control the in utero conditions throughout a pregnancy. We cannot choose or dictate the home life environment, the social and economic environment of a developing child, etc. These factors all impact potential.

Arguably, the labor market is working as a fierce natural selector on the human population. But aside from that, I heard of some new technology stuff that I don't really understand, called 'crispr.' So they probably will start messing around with the human genes at some point, probably by the end of this century, if we get that far.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Certainly there is a we. There are currently billions of us, and there have been billions more. Go to any big city at lunchtime and I'm sure you can't help but bump into a few of us.

Yeah, but we don't all think like you for all cases.

 

[metis]

So when you see both Democrat and Republican as being right wing then that shows you are in the Marxist part of the spectrum. And Marxism is pretty well much a part of Fascism. Indeed, both Fascists and Marxists slogged it out in the 1930's, not becaused they oppose each other but because they were fishing in the same pond.

Nope. Fascism is far right, and socialism is left with communism being far left. Marxism is more of a philosophy based on Marx's teachings that encompasses many factors.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, but we don't all think like you for all cases.

What is important, Mikkel, is to compare and contrast what many people think and to look at patterns of commonality and difference, then figure out why that is so.

That is what is great about a forum like this, where we can share our thoughts and ideas on things and compare them to the thoughts and ideas of others. We each have capacity to draw both sound and unsound conclusions for a wide variety of reasons.

For things that matter, I want to know if my thoughts and conclusions are unsound and adjust accordingly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is important, Mikkel, is to compare and contrast what many people think and to look at patterns of commonality and difference, then figure out why that is so.

That is what is great about a forum like this, where we can share our thoughts and ideas on things and compare them to the thoughts and ideas of others. We each have capacity to draw both sound and unsound conclusions for a wide variety of reasons.

For things that matter, I want to know if my thoughts and conclusions are unsound and adjust accordingly.

The problem is that there is no strong objective standard for unsound, when it comes to being a human.

 

[MikeF]

Nope. Fascism is far right, and socialism is left with communism being far left. Marxism is more of a philosophy based on Marx's teachings that encompasses many factors.

Marxism - Wikipedia

Marxism is a left-wing to far-left method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.​

 

[metis]

Marxism - Wikipedia

Marxism is a left-wing to far-left method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.​

Yep.

 

[MikeF]

The problem is that there is no strong objective standard for unsound, when it comes to being a human.

Again, I disagree. We develop our objective standards through trial and error. Each new generation gets to build on the vast corpus of experience provided by all those that have come before.

All of this, of course, depends upon the subject matter at hand. Some things are purely subjective, like a favorite song or color, or what is attractive or beautiful. We can also create subjective abstract systems and constructs with defined characteristics and properties that are mutually agreed to, and one can speak objectively about it within the boundaries of the construct. And then there is objective reality independent and external to our minds about which we can speak both objectively and subjectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, I disagree. We develop our objective standards through trial and error. Each new generation gets to build on the vast corpus of experience provided by all those that have come before.

All of this, of course, depends upon the subject matter at hand. Some things are purely subjective, like a favorite song or color, or what is attractive or beautiful. We can also create subjective abstract systems and constructs with defined characteristics and properties that are mutually agreed to, and one can speak objectively about it within the boundaries of the construct. And then there is objective reality independent and external to our minds about which we can speak both objectively and subjectively.

So you have an objective standard for the meaning of life?
That is where it ends. In other words what matters about being a human?

Now I doubt that because nobody has in recorded history been able to do that. And so far I have seen no indication in your writing that you can do it. But just give it a go.

 

[MikeF]

So you have an objective standard for the meaning of life?
That is where it ends. In other words what matters about being a human?

Now I doubt that because nobody has in recorded history been able to do that. And so far I have seen no indication in your writing that you can do it. But just give it a go.

Objectively, life has no meaning, so any meaning assigned to life would be a subjective abstract construct. See previous post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objectively, life has no meaning, so any meaning assigned to life would be a subjective abstract construct. See previous post.

So is any standard of importance. That is what you do. You claim something is more important than something else, but you have no objective standard for importance or even utility.

 

[MikeF]

So is any standard of importance.

To the Cosmos, to reality, the answer is no. The Cosmos is quite indifferent to any human concerns.

That is what you do. You claim something is more important than something else, but you have no objective standard for importance or even utility.

Again, not true. If we create a subjective construct like ethics for example, that abstract system will have definitions, properties and characteristic that we can talk about. If a particular goal or outcome is agreed to, or set within that construct, we can talk objectively about how to meet or achieve that desired result, or objectively evaluate an action or behavior in reference to the subjective ethical construct.

If we are talking about communication modalities, and someone makes a claim that one particular modality is more fundamental than any of the others, we would first have to come to agreement on what exactly is meant by the subjective abstract construct labeled 'fundamental' as it relates to communication modalities, and then using that definition we can make objective assessments about the claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To the Cosmos, to reality, the answer is no. The Cosmos is quite indifferent to any human concerns.



Again, not true. If we create a subjective construct like ethics for example, that abstract system will have definitions, properties and characteristic that we can talk about. If a particular goal or outcome is agreed to, or set within that construct, we can talk objectively about how to meet or achieve that desired result, or objectively evaluate an action or behavior in reference to the subjective ethical construct.

If we are talking about communication modalities, and someone makes a claim that one particular modality is more fundamental than any of the others, we would first have to come to agreement on what exactly is meant by the subjective abstract construct labeled 'fundamental' as it relates to communication modalities, and then using that definition we can make objective assessments about the claim.

But there is no one set of constructs.

 

[MikeF]

But there is no one set of constructs.

Well, no, there are lots and lots. What is your point?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, no, there are lots and lots. What is your point?

I am a member of another "we" that your "we" when it comes to assumptions.

So how do you decide objectively between 2 or more different "we"?

 

[MikeF]

I am a member of another "we" that your "we" when it comes to assumptions.

Well, to be clear, my 'we' refers to all of humanity, all human beings. That would make your 'we' a subset of my 'we', a member of my 'we'.

So how do you decide objectively between 2 or more different "we"?

Depends on what we are talking about. If the first 'we' group all share the view that the color blue is their favorite color in the visual spectrum and and a second 'we' group all share the view that the color red is their favorite, then there is nothing to objectively decide, each group is simply stating a subjective preference.

If, on the other hand, the first 'we' group claims the earth is flat and is the center of the universe and the second 'we' group claims the earth is round and orbits the sun which all spirals in a galaxy, I would evaluate their claims empirically. Are the respective claims corroborated by centuries of human observation and experience? Which one is more predictive of future observations?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, to be clear, my 'we' refers to all of humanity, all human beings. That would make your 'we' a subset of my 'we', a member of my 'we'.



Depends on what we are talking about. If the first 'we' group all share the view that the color blue is their favorite color in the visual spectrum and and a second 'we' group all share the view that the color red is their favorite, then there is nothing to objectively decide, each group is simply stating a subjective preference.

If, on the other hand, the first 'we' group claims the earth is flat and is the center of the universe and the second 'we' group claims the earth is round and orbits the sun which all spirals in a galaxy, I would evaluate their claims empirically. Are the respective claims corroborated by centuries of human observation and experience? Which one is more predictive of future observations?

Yeah, but you brought up ethics. That can't be resolved using empirical means. Neither can different versions of what science is and there is more than one of those.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, but you brought up ethics. That can't be resolved using empirical means. Neither can different versions of what science is and there is more than one of those.

Mikkel, I don't think you even read what I write. If ethics is a subjective construct, as I said, then folks have to come to some agreement on what it entails, or alternatively, those with enough power can simply force their subjective construct on to the whole group. Either way, the construct must be created. Once created however, one can objectively consider its affects and outcomes. When formulating an ethical construct, one can use objective information to support or critique a construct or a specific aspect of an ethical system.

As to their being different versions of science, I really don't know what you mean by repeating this. We group and categorize things in all sorts of ways. We can create hierarchies of categories to help us understand how similar activities or things can be related yet have distinct aspects. All of it are abstractions we create to organize and help us think about things.

If you are saying there are different versions of science in that we can differentiate physics as a category, biology as a category, chemistry as a category, etc. then yeah, we can group and divide scientific investigations in all manner of ways. If, on the other hand, you mean to say there are 'sciences' that would not be considered science by reputable academic institutions, then I would take issue with that.

When I speak of science, I refer to any legitimate scientific inquiry that adheres to standards and principles designed to mitigate the fallibility of a human investigator.