Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Interesting dialogue about Plato's "ideal society" on The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2012/may/09/big-ideas-podcast-plato-audio

EDIT: and just a little bit of commentary from Mark Kingwell on the reality of the "philosopher-king" ideal:

Elsewhere in the dialogue, meanwhile, there are scattered clues that the whole ideal-city set up, including the philosophically minded ruler, is a veiled warning that thinkers ought to steer well clear of politics. Force and deception will be necessary to turn an unruly populace toward the truth, he notes, without mentioning that this seems to set up a performative contraction: how can a loyal servant of the truth use deception as means even to a good end? And, in a blood-chilling passage, Socrates drops a hint that no ideal city will be possible without first getting rid of everyone over the age of 10. Call it the Clean-Slate Premise. Ouch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/empty-chair-for-philosopher-king

 

[Dak]

Not able to listen to that audio now, but the understanding that anyone claiming to be a "philosopher king" would of necessity be tyrannical is not a new revelation.
Socrates suggestion is overly optimistic. While changing adults is nearly impossible, he was overlooking genetic pre-disposition and general "human nature", in all it's diversity. As one speaker analogized(Paraphrased): People are stones, unique. The social engineer tries to make them into bricks.
Even starting with young children, it would take several generations to gain noticeable change, which would be tenuous at best.

Edit: Socrates himself might be the best example as to why it will never work. Even in the middle of the "ideal city", there will be another Socrates to bring it down.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know you said that you haven't read the article/listened to the audio, but you jump the gun sometimes with your accusations of unoriginality.

The main purpose of the article is to try and discuss what Plato's intention surrounding the "philosopher-king" premise was if it's not to be taken seriously (which, the author contends, it isn't).

 

[Dak]

Yeah I was addressing the quote you added.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, that was just to show that they weren't blindly accepting the philosopher-king theory at face value.

 

[Dak]

Well this reminds me of Nietzsche's assertion that when a philosopher writes, he hides as much as he reveals.

 

[Einherjar86]

As it should be! Earth and World must ebb and flow, and each at the other's expense.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Good article on animal consumption.

Animal, Vegetable, Miserable

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[Einherjar86]

I find it hypocritical that the author claims carnivores to be a self-righteous bunch, and yet he's the one using the NY Times column as a soapbox.

 

[Dak]

The Arrival (or end) of Peak Government

 

[Dak]

Greek police officers voting for Golden Dawn


Irony?

 

[Einherjar86]

We can now see that the Central State faces an impossible contradiction: to pursue its primary purpose of protecting the citizenry from predation, it is granted powers that enable it to evade its own self-limiting mechanisms

This idea has been argued and expounded by the continental theorist Giorgio Agamben in his book Homo Sacer where he describes his idea of the "State of Exception." An excerpt from a lecture Agamben gave on this concept is here: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

I liked that article a lot, although the criticism levied at centralized governmental systems (i.e. that they perceive anything external to them as a risk and thus are propelled toward expansion as an inherent feature) can also be levied at practically any "self-sustaining" system or theory. The very point of a total, enclosed process of theory or action is to provide an explanation for the phenomena that challenge it. In this way, philosophers and politicians alike gravitate toward rationalization and justification in order to make their theories work.

 

[Dak]

This idea has been argued and expounded by the continental theorist Giorgio Agamben in his book Homo Sacer where he describes his idea of the "State of Exception." An excerpt from a lecture Agamben gave on this concept is here: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

I liked that article a lot, although the criticism levied at centralized governmental systems (i.e. that they perceive anything external to them as a risk and thus are propelled toward expansion as an inherent feature) can also be levied at practically any "self-sustaining" system or theory. The very point of a total, enclosed process of theory or action is to provide an explanation for the phenomena that challenge it. In this way, philosophers and politicians alike gravitate toward rationalization and justification in order to make their theories work.

Thanks for the link. I don't know if you read my articles in UVM, but I agree with the assertion in that lecture that essentially the culmination of politics is violence. Politics is violence.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Thanks for the plug.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=youtu.be

I thought it was hilarious that TED tried to hide this crap

 

[Dak]

Either an idiot or a liar. Or both.

I should find a chart showing all the famous deaths on full moons, exclude all other possible data, and then give a talk about how famous people are obviously deathly allergic to full moons, replete with the charts showing the "obvious" connection.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think he likes saying "systematic feedback loop."

 

[Einherjar86]

To talk about this a bit more, TED itself is a money-making machine; it charges its subscribers something like $1000 per year. I always face a certain internal conflict when confronted by institutions like TED or the Singularity University, and similar programs.

On the one hand, I love the fact that there are institutions devoted to scientific and technological development, and the absolution of potential global catastrophes.

On the other hand, it frustrates me that such institutions only serve to widen the gap of intellectual segregation. The knowledge and information they deal in adopts an esoteric and elite status because it's reserved for the minority that can afford it. Thus, in contradiction to their proposed goals, they're actually perpetuating global inequality and mass ignorance by isolating new developments and information to an elite and erudite few.

That said, with technology continuing to develop the way it is, another internal contradiction arises: even while private institutions like this attempt to socially and financially isolate their advancements, they're also contributing to the vastly expanding field of technology and electronics that is simultaneously enabling the free and unchecked spread of ideas. So that's good, I guess.

And in other news, has everyone seen this fucking gem?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU&feature=related[/ame]

Ya'll oughta be a-gen it!

 

[Dak]

To talk about this a bit more, TED itself is a money-making machine; it charges its subscribers something like $1000 per year. I always face a certain internal conflict when confronted by institutions like TED or the Singularity University, and similar programs.

On the one hand, I love the fact that there are institutions devoted to scientific and technological development, and the absolution of potential global catastrophes.

On the other hand, it frustrates me that such institutions only serve to widen the gap of intellectual segregation. The knowledge and information they deal in adopts an esoteric and elite status because it's reserved for the minority that can afford it. Thus, in contradiction to their proposed goals, they're actually perpetuating global inequality and mass ignorance by isolating new developments and information to an elite and erudite few.

That said, with technology continuing to develop the way it is, another internal contradiction arises: even while private institutions like this attempt to socially and financially isolate their advancements, they're also contributing to the vastly expanding field of technology and electronics that is simultaneously enabling the free and unchecked spread of ideas. So that's good, I guess.

At one point, only rich people could own cars. Only rich people could own (Car) wireless phones, computers, etc.

In a free market, "early adopters" are pretty much always going to be the rich, and then as money flows in, markets expand, competitors come in, cost is driven down on scale and competition, and eventually it is available to the masses in ways that only years before even the rich didn't have access too. (Look at smart phones for instance).

However, once an item is mandated for everyone, it generally ceases innovation, for there is no longer need for market expansion or competition.

The problem comes in when the ability to fail/succeed is removed. Then you wind up with permanent classes/underclasses, and the knowledge/skill divide becomes exacerbated and endemic.

 

[Dak]

Charting Fun with Krugman