monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
this^^^ pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with america's government
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
this^^^ pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with america's government
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yes, it's asinine that Nolan try and make his film pertinent to the circumstances of today's society. What does he think he is, a human being?
Every time you post, I realize how appropriate your username really is.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
No, but i am finally annoyed enough with your trolling / attention-whoring to put you on my ignore list, so thanks for helping me with that decision.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
I got a laugh out of this:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NuTWTAXkA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NuTWTAXkA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I wonder how many people in the Federal govt actually support the American hegemony in terms of a long-term economic cost/benefit ratio. Maybe they just know the world's gonna keep sucking their dick for money for a while, and that $20T or whatever in debt is a fair price for some perceived economic reward to be reaped from occupying the world in various ways.
According to Warren Buffett, America is basically selling itself off to the rest of the world -- being "colonized by purchase". That seems to point to more global business influence in the U.S. govt, so I wonder how that will affect the transition of the Repub/Dem parties as their old guard dies off.
According to Warren Buffett, America is basically selling itself off to the rest of the world -- being "colonized by purchase". That seems to point to more global business influence in the U.S. govt, so I wonder how that will affect the transition of the Repub/Dem parties as their old guard dies off.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I wonder if it's more complicated than that. The paradox of the situation is that the quest for "American hegemony" is actually contributing to the gradual disintegration of itself (as you said, being "colonized by purchase"). Inevitably, I see the emphasis on American hegemony morphing into a larger, more authoritarian global system of surveillance and power that traverses traditional national boundaries (Orwell's Oceania, or something of the sort); a "Western hegemony". I think the tendency of certain major corporations to shirk any responsibility to their country (which, it can be argued, they don't have) betrays this emergence.
Even if strong patriotism and nationalism is still rampant among the public, and gets touted by politicians as a major talking point (among democrats and republicans), I don't see the actions of actual politicians or the government itself as being very "nationalistic." They can emphasize their focus on American exceptionalism and greatness all they want in speech; but what they're doing is contributing less (far less) to an American empire and more to a politico-corporate hegemony of business interests that fund political and military endeavors intended to protect those interests.
It all goes back to the contradictions our culture thrives upon: tradition vs. innovation. We continually appeal to both archaic, traditional notions of patriotism and nationalism, as well as technology, innovation, and capitalism, which by its very nature strives to break beyond the boundaries of national legislation and regulation.
Even if strong patriotism and nationalism is still rampant among the public, and gets touted by politicians as a major talking point (among democrats and republicans), I don't see the actions of actual politicians or the government itself as being very "nationalistic." They can emphasize their focus on American exceptionalism and greatness all they want in speech; but what they're doing is contributing less (far less) to an American empire and more to a politico-corporate hegemony of business interests that fund political and military endeavors intended to protect those interests.
It all goes back to the contradictions our culture thrives upon: tradition vs. innovation. We continually appeal to both archaic, traditional notions of patriotism and nationalism, as well as technology, innovation, and capitalism, which by its very nature strives to break beyond the boundaries of national legislation and regulation.
Dak
mentat
Dollars are a major US export. Guess where the easiest place to spend those dollars is? Right back in the US. However, since the US isn't producing enough to export to balance imports, the dollars are coming home to buy assets.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Einherjar86
Active Member
In response to Jimmy:
In my opinion, theory is idealist in that, by the very definition of "theory," it attempts to apply itself regardless of alternative experiences or perspectives. It may take these into account, and claim that other theories are possible; but theory (in both the academic and purely individual senses) always exists with the underlying assumption that it is the best possible approach to, or method for, doing something. If it is the best, even for a finite number of individuals, it claims to correspond to some metaphysical truth lurking in the background. This is one of those eternal philosophical quandaries of "theorizing."
As far as "realism" goes, you would have to define how you mean it; in the Middle Ages, Realism was a philosophy in the debate over universals that posited that "universals" (eternal truths, ideas, etc.) are real, making it more of an idealist theory than anything else...
But if you mean it in the sense I think you do, then I would say that any theory that takes something as real ascribes to that thing/object some form of substantiality. Whether the real, natural world is a reflection of God's divine plan, a debased form of ideality, or merely the presentation of that which is presentable, the theoretical practice assumes a grounding, fundamental point by which to navigate. This point, which inevitably recedes into hazy quasi-mysticism, will always be more of an idea than a material, "real" fact or object. This applies to both science and philosophy.
Much of this problem all goes back to Hume's problem of our inability to prove causality. Causality, if it could be proven, would mark possibly the most tremendous development ever in the history of science or philosophy. But we can't prove it; we can only observe it...
I've yet to read a theory that entirely convinces me of its proposed fundamental grounding.
In my opinion, theory is idealist in that, by the very definition of "theory," it attempts to apply itself regardless of alternative experiences or perspectives. It may take these into account, and claim that other theories are possible; but theory (in both the academic and purely individual senses) always exists with the underlying assumption that it is the best possible approach to, or method for, doing something. If it is the best, even for a finite number of individuals, it claims to correspond to some metaphysical truth lurking in the background. This is one of those eternal philosophical quandaries of "theorizing."
As far as "realism" goes, you would have to define how you mean it; in the Middle Ages, Realism was a philosophy in the debate over universals that posited that "universals" (eternal truths, ideas, etc.) are real, making it more of an idealist theory than anything else...
But if you mean it in the sense I think you do, then I would say that any theory that takes something as real ascribes to that thing/object some form of substantiality. Whether the real, natural world is a reflection of God's divine plan, a debased form of ideality, or merely the presentation of that which is presentable, the theoretical practice assumes a grounding, fundamental point by which to navigate. This point, which inevitably recedes into hazy quasi-mysticism, will always be more of an idea than a material, "real" fact or object. This applies to both science and philosophy.
Much of this problem all goes back to Hume's problem of our inability to prove causality. Causality, if it could be proven, would mark possibly the most tremendous development ever in the history of science or philosophy. But we can't prove it; we can only observe it...
I've yet to read a theory that entirely convinces me of its proposed fundamental grounding.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
What about the fact that we observe cause/effect relationships in 99.9% of all phenomena? I know we have a flawed theory, but what difference does that 0.1% uncertainty make in the grand scheme of humanity? We may never resolve it, so does the question even matter?
Einherjar86
Active Member
In "common" (i.e. muggle) experience, the proof of causality (or lack thereof) may be said to be irrelevant if only because it might inspire people to cower shaking in the corners of their bedrooms for fear that anything at all might happen to them should they step foot outside their front door. The ridiculousness of this claim lies in the assumption that there exists some totality of possibilities, and thus in the whole expanse of time we would have seen laws and rules we take for granted suddenly change; or, perhaps, they're all about to...
However, if we abandon the assumption that there must be a totality of all possibility, then we're left with an interesting notion: that of infinite possibility. When infinite possibility presents itself, the notion that laws and rules, which are in fact susceptible to change without warning or "cause", might remain steadfast for extended, even enormously long, periods of time becomes much more plausible.
In the world of academia, the problem of causality is incredibly important. In talking about possibility "in theory", we can't afford to ignore the causal dilemma. Far too often do "logical" thinkers ignore disruptions in their argument where they assume that some cause must always have the oft-observed effect.
However, if we abandon the assumption that there must be a totality of all possibility, then we're left with an interesting notion: that of infinite possibility. When infinite possibility presents itself, the notion that laws and rules, which are in fact susceptible to change without warning or "cause", might remain steadfast for extended, even enormously long, periods of time becomes much more plausible.
In the world of academia, the problem of causality is incredibly important. In talking about possibility "in theory", we can't afford to ignore the causal dilemma. Far too often do "logical" thinkers ignore disruptions in their argument where they assume that some cause must always have the oft-observed effect.
I'm reading Bergson for the first time this semester, and a lot of what you say here really resonates with what I've been thinking about with his work in mind. He demarcates the realm of science, which concerns itself with relational entities like words/symbols, from the realm of metaphysics ("the science which claims to dispense with symbols"). The former realm is essential for everyday life in the manner that Grant points out, but the latter underscores the true fabric of reality that we intuitively experience from moment to moment (in a process called "duration", a technical term in his philosophy along with things like "intuition"). No one realm is superior to the other, but each is necessary for the other's existence and proliferation.
Bergson claims that our conflation with objects of science and objects of metaphysics forces us to "project" the past onto the future given scientific laws that we often take to be immutable. I can't really say for sure, but this observation seems to anticipate a semi-resolution of Hume's problem of induction as a brand of a negative solution: knowledge of the future is profoundly unattainable, and this is simply to be taken as a rudimentary fact of metaphysics.
As someone that's a pretty staunch physicalist, I do think there's some beauty in Bergson's attempt to so flagrantly object to any sort of systematized philosophy. Whether or not he falls prey to his own game is another matter, I suppose.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
zabu of nΩd;10409468 said:
There should always be skepticism regarding identifying things as causes and effects, since it scientifically attempts to simplify nature to calculable quantities in systems that are staggeringly complex (such as the human body) whose dynamics are staggeringly complicated by their reciprocal relationship with the natural world beyond the arbitrary linguistic boundaries we establish to identify individual systems (such as a single human being).
All theories are fundamentally unsound in that they cohere by an internal logic composed of arbitrary units of language that retain their meaning only insofar as blind faith dogmatically avers their atomic indivisibility.
The question certainly does matter, and understanding questions like it is the raison d'etre of philosophy as a discipline that keeps humanity from being tyrannized by any single theory.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You know, Bergson is a writer I've always avoided primarily because I assumed (lazy of me, I know) that his emphasis on intuition relied too much on a kind of Heideggerian "being-in-the-world"; which, although it attempts to circumvent metaphysics, ends up assuming a certain relational/temporal quality that conditions humanity's notion of being (I'm not much of a Heideggerian, but that's what I understand).
However, you're now the second person I know in the past month to speak positively about Bergson's work, so I may have to look and see what BU's library has.
I also haven't encountered a decent positive solution to Hume's problem; but Quentin Meillassoux presents another interesting negative solution in his book After Finitude, which is along the lines of what I said above but draws more heavily from Badiou than Bergson.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Article excerpted from a book by the author. I'm sure Dak will find this interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-army-racism-iraq-afghanistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-army-racism-iraq-afghanistan
Dak
mentat
Sensationalistic bullshit. Yes there are skinheads in the US Military. But there is/has been a far larger problem of the infestation of organized street gangs within the military, that the Pentagon prefers to keep under wraps. What is more disconcerting? The lonely aryan headbanging in his room or the hundreds of gang members being trained in urban warfare by the "#1 military in the world"?
http://apsu.academia.edu/CarterSmith/Papers/1628541/Gang_Investigators_Perceptions_of_Military-trained_Gang_Members_MTGM_
http://apsu.academia.edu/CarterSmith/Papers/1628541/Gang_Investigators_Perceptions_of_Military-trained_Gang_Members_MTGM_
