Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 23:17:01 GMT -5
Mr. Saunders of the University of London, who lectures on Modern British History, and who co-edited the recent publication Making Thatcher's Britain, is rightly anxious that we should be aware of what Disraeli told his party in 1848:
Is it not matter for regret when the politicians of to-day forget Disraeli's principle?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 2:10:58 GMT -5
Why should there be ladies?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 7, 2013 4:00:07 GMT -5
Mr. Saunders of the University of London, who lectures on Modern British History, and who co-edited the recent publication Making Thatcher's Britain, is rightly anxious that we should be aware of what Disraeli told his party in 1848: Is it not matter for regret when the politicians of to-day forget Disraeli's principle? Well, the subject of the book that you mention Robert Saunders as having co-edited was most certainly not a gentleman; not having read the work, I wonder if said co-editor makes reference to this rather salient fact?(!)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 4:26:53 GMT -5
Why should there be anyone? According to the great philosopher, Georg Hegel, the goal of the dialectic is absolute knowledge (and freedom) on one level, and the organic society on another, a situation in which the divisions in human nature are reconciled. Karl Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, ahinton, if about little else. Marx said we should let the workers rule OK because then they will rule on behalf of the great mass of society, the working class. Bakunin said no. You shouldn't have any rulers, because if workers are rulers, they will cease to be workers and will be rulers. They will follow the interests of the rulers, not the interest interests of the working class. There are only improper leaders, whether or not Disraeli, Thatcher, Cameron, Salmond and Abbot can count themselves amongst them!
This is a bit like George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', Sydney. The drunken and irresponsible farmer Mr Jones was no gentleman and left! The pigs took over, but no one could ultimately tell the difference. All this shouldn't last; but it will, always; the human 'always' of course, a century, two centuries ... and after that it will be different, but worse. We were the leopards, the lions, Sydney; those who take our place will be jackals and sheep, and the whole lot of us - leopards, lions, jackals and sheep - will continue to think ourselves the salt of the earth. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Marx thought that this was all rubbish, ahinton. Marx thought that people in a different society would be different people, would have different, less self-directed interests, and would work together for the benefit of all. If you look at the history of the twentieth century, Bakunin was right? The short answer may be that history is neither about individuals (Carlyle) nor about societies (Marx), but what Georg Hegel calls 'Geist'. It is the idea that a unified view of history is something mental or spiritual, and therefore the process of history is simply ourselves. Indeed, the great Scottish philosopher of the Enlightenment, David Hume, argued that the science of human nature depends upon the observation of our mind and our observation of other human beings. So why should there be anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 7, 2013 7:16:42 GMT -5
Why should there be anyone? So that at least some people can discuss this topic, here, of course! Well, that's one reason, anyway... According to the great philosopher, Georg Hegel, the goal of the dialectic is absolute knowledge (and freedom) on one level, and the organic society on another, a situation in which the divisions in human nature are reconciled. Karl Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, ahinton, if about little else. Marx said we should let the workers rule OK because then they will rule on behalf of the great mass of society, the working class. Bakunin said no. You shouldn't have any rulers, because if workers are rulers, they will cease to be workers and will be rulers. They will follow the interests of the rulers, not the interest interests of the working class. There are only improper leaders, whether or not Disraeli, Thatcher, Cameron, Salmond and Abbot can count themselves amongst them! "Workers"; this sounds like "worker bees" rather than human beings. HUmans are "workers" only when there is work to be done that requires human brian power and/or physical skills; there's less "work" now than once there was, for obvious technilogical reasons. Furthermore, some people would regard what artists do as other than "work" (not that I would agree) - and those who want to work but cannot find work are not strictly speaking "workers" until and unless they do find it. I find this entire notion of "working class" and "ruling class" destructive and divisive as well as misleading and unclear enough as to have little real meaning. In one of his not atypical moments of contrived humour, the Greek man known as Prince Philip observed that his wife must be working class because she works - which indeed she does (and at almost three decades beyond state retirement age in Britain). Here do retired people fit into this artificial "class" system? - do they get chucked out of it altogeher when and because they cease working? This is a bit like George Orwell's ' Animal Farm', Sydney. The drunken and irresponsible farmer Mr Jones was no gentleman and left! The pigs took over, but no one could ultimately tell the difference. All this shouldn't last; but it will, always; the human 'always' of course, a century, two centuries ... and after that it will be different, but worse. We were the leopards, the lions, Sydney; those who take our place will be jackals and sheep, and the whole lot of us - leopards, lions, jackals and sheep - will continue to think ourselves the salt of the earth. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Rather than comment directly on this, I would say just two things; firstly, whilst without any rulers there would likely be no order, "ruling" has, like so much else, to be contained lest it risks becoming sufficiently disproportionate in its provisions and demands as to act against the interests of those being ruled and, secondly, that there are only two kinds of ruling system - the dictatorial and the democratic - altough the dividing lines between these have often become blurred. Marx thought that this was all rubbish, ahinton. Marx thought that people in a different society would be different people, would have different, less self-directed interests, and would work together for the benefit of all. If you look at the history of the twentieth century, Bakunin was right? The short answer may be that history is neither about individuals (Carlyle) nor about societies (Marx), but what Georg Hegel calls ' Geist'. It is the idea that a unified view of history is something mental or spiritual, and therefore the process of history is simply ourselves. Indeed, the great Scottish philosopher of the Enlightenment, David Hume, argued that the science of human nature depends upon the observation of our mind and our observation of other human beings. So why should there be anyone else? I don't understand the question with which you begin and end - or indeed even the reason why you ask it - but I can to some degree see where you're coming from in finding shortcomings in Marx's and Bakunin's world-views compared to Hume's (and I do not way this just because we Scots always get everything right!). The balance between self-interest and considering the interests of others, whilst difficult to strike, needs nonetheless to be struck as well and as often as possible, for the human world can no more survive on altruism alone than it can survive without it. Whilst the phrase probably wrongly attributed to Margaret Thatcher about there being no such thing as society is, of course, at least as wrong as was its probable literal attribution, there is not only society qua society, for the simple reason that "society", by its very nature, is comprised of many very different people who share some interests, concerns, needs and aspirations but do not share others.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 7, 2013 7:18:22 GMT -5
Why should there be ladies? Is that meant to be a serious question? If so, I assume it to be intended to imply "why should there be ladies and gentlemen and not just women and men?", but I could, of course, be quite wrong about that!...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 9:11:02 GMT -5
Why?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 7, 2013 10:25:55 GMT -5
"Why" what? Why could I be wrong about what I'd written, as I suggested might be the case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 10:32:19 GMT -5
There are no proper leaders of the people, Sydney!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 7, 2013 11:21:59 GMT -5
There are no proper leaders of the people, Sydney! That's a very big statement to make - i.e. that none of the world's 200 or so (and rising) countries has effective leadership - but even if nevertheless true, what's to be done about it? Dictators force themlves on some nations and leaders of democratic nations are elected, albeit from chosen leaders of political parties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 19:49:32 GMT -5
. . . what's to be done about it? Dictators force themlves on some nations and leaders of democratic nations are elected, albeit from chosen leaders of political parties. Old hat Mr. H! As I have already pointed out, the abolition of so-called "nations" is long overdue. We know what happens to bad debts in the end do we not. And a fleet of incorruptible robots could deal very nicely with any dictators that might jump up. In case the member might think that utopian we draw his attention again to the words of the great thinker Wilde as quoted in full in the theatre thread: thethird.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=theatre&action=display&thread=452To try is the thing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 0:38:38 GMT -5
Marx: "a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves" Such as the notion "society" - in reality it is a mere word, signifying nothing. Art is all!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 8, 2013 3:00:42 GMT -5
. . . what's to be done about it? Dictators force themlves on some nations and leaders of democratic nations are elected, albeit from chosen leaders of political parties. Old hat Mr. H! As I have already pointed out, the abolition of so-called "nations" is long overdue. We know what happens to bad debts in the end do we not. And a fleet of incorruptible robots could deal very nicely with any dictators that might jump up. Tired, worn out old hat, Mr. G.! Far from the abolition of nations, the number of them is increasing and may indeed do so again in Britain next year, for example. A fleet of robots would all have to be manufactured, programmed and maintained by humans - and even if one such did deal with dictators (though how it would do this remains entirely unclear), why would it single them out for attention and leave alone all democratically elected leaders? Who would decide on the merging of all nations and how and by whom would it be achieved? How many centuries do you think that it would take, even were all nations eventually to decide (which of course they'll never do) that it might seem like a good idea to merge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 3:41:08 GMT -5
Good morning to you all! I trust that all is well with all of you. If I may nevertheless address all three of your final questions below directly, ahinton: a. A fleet of robots would all have to be manufactured, programmed and maintained by humans - and even if one such did deal with dictators (though how it would do this remains entirely unclear), why would it single them out for attention and leave alone all democratically elected leaders? Why should robots make such a choice, ahinton? And on topic, why should there be gentlemen? Why should there be ladies? Why should there even be human beings? b. Who would decide on the merging of all nations and how and by whom would it be achieved? ahinton? c. How many centuries do you think that it would take, even were all nations eventually to decide (which of course they'll never do) that it might seem like a good idea to merge? Two centuries, ahinton. It was, in a sense, proposed in 1795 by Immanuel Kant. The Third - Weltbürgertum?In the twentieth century, both the League of Nations (LN) and the United Nations (UN) were attempts to create a world government. The onset of World War II showed that the League had failed its primary purpose, which was to prevent any future world war. The League lasted for 27 years. The United Nations (UN) replaced it after the end of the war and inherited a number of agencies and organisations founded by the League. So a form of world government has existed for generations already, even if it may still be considered ineffectual. In the twenty-first century, I should perhaps report another interesting development. The WC (World Council) met for the very first time at 21:00 (GMT) on Tuesday 12 March 2013, at the Scarsdale Tavern, a delightful pub in Edwardes Square, Kensington. The Scarsdale Tavern As expected, kleines c was unanimously voted the WC's first president, so perhaps I could replace Sydney's proposed robots with a WC. I propose some toast: to the WC! Three cheers from kleines c, Big C and the legendary bb (Friday morning breakfast coffee)!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 8, 2013 5:48:41 GMT -5
If I may nevertheless address all three of your final questions below directly, ahinton: A fleet of robots would all have to be manufactured, programmed and maintained by humans - and even if one such did deal with dictators (though how it would do this remains entirely unclear), why would it single them out for attention and leave alone all democratically elected leaders? Why should robots make such a choice, ahinton? And on topic, why should there be gentlemen? Why should there be ladies? Why should there even be human beings? Robots cannot make choices; as I wrote, they have to be progrmmed by humans to do what they do. There should be human beings for the reason that I gave earlier, but what kind of question is that? Why shouldn't there be human beings? Who would decide on the merging of all nations and how and by whom would it be achieved? If by that you mean that I might do such a thing, God forbid! c. How many centuries do you think that it would take, even were all nations eventually to decide (which of course they'll never do) that it might seem like a good idea to merge? Two centuries, ahinton. It was, in a sense, proposed in 1795 by Immanuel Kant. At least that, I imagine; the trouble is that, like the Channel Tunnel, HS2 and the rest, it would overrun the proposed timeframe...
|
|