Traditional man and country

[Haykakan]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I imagined you would attempt to somehow create a straw man. Whether or not you subjectively believed you are reciting Marx's style of argument is irrelevant because that's not what I was saying. Apparently, you did not read my post, and yet are accusing me of not reading yours. My point was not pertaining to the form of his argument vs the form of what you're purportedly saying. This is about the substance of the arguments both you and Marx appear to be conveying on a larger and more conceptual scale.

You are impliedlyarguing that environment determines consciousness, and this is the core of what Marx was saying in his materialistic version of history. The difference is that you are impliedly doing what you are explicitly claiming you are not, i.e., you argue essentially conveying what Marx' main point was, without coming out of the closet and admitting so.

But in an attempt to sidestep the fact that Marx's argument has lost its validity and in fact, has been discredited, it's natural and in fact, it is the trend of most people, 'academics,' and self-styled intellectuals that subscribe to this behavioralist-type mentality and argument, to somehow claim "Well, I'm not exactly saying what Marx is saying, mine are based on my own scientific research and observations!" Notice that Marx, too, thought he had reduced history down to a "science" via his own "scientific research and observations."

However, as is usually the case, this is just another example of how fungible language and words can be, and how if one somehow attaches the label of "scientific research and observation" to their argument, that this somehow transforms it into some talismanic shield, free from defects and fallacies.

So what exactly is your point?Should we base our theories on something other then scientific research and observation? If so then what do you suggest?Are you also implying that environment has no effect on people and society?You keep linking my argument to Marx when they are clearly different and i clearly already explained how.I do read what you write in your post but the problem is it makes no sence.In my opinion and that of most rational people the strength of your argument is measured by the facts you have to back it up so yeh having done scientific research and observation definetly adds to the validity of any theory or argument if the results suport the said theory.I don't like your iplication that i am some kind of undercover marxist because i am not.Even after i clearly explained to you how i am not you still label me as such.You and kanadahye are starting to switch places, he is starting to be less offencive and make more sence while you are heading in the opposite direction in a feeble attempt to discredit me for some reason i don't yet know.

[Haykakan]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I disagree with this assertion for the following rationale:

. This is very close to what Marx was babbling about in his "materialist conception of history," also known as historical materialism. The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness. In the process, aside from the many errors and fallacies he commits in such an assertion, he denies that we have free will, and implies that we are nothing more than a middle ground between a sponge and putty with no originality. Yet, in the process he commits a fallacy because somehow he is the only who can view outside of the looking glass and notice these things.

People have always been "materialistic," because that is an innate human trait and feature. To use a reference from the Bible, man is in a "fallen" state: therefore, he is imperfect. He has always had his imperfections. This is not an argument about a past era of goodness or utopia. If you presume and read anything about that into this, you are reading things into the discussion that do not exist. Money is simply a means and a medium of exchange. It is only representative of the value we place on it and it has had many different forms over time. Do not think that prior to money, in the age of barter or cavemen, that people were not materialistic, or possessive or engaged in feuds over this lust for booty.

Just wanted to clarify.

My ideas are not in any way based on Marx or any other thinker, they are my own.I base my theories on facts and observation gathered by valid scientific research.The south american tribe i mentioned was living proof that people have not always been materialistic.That same example also showed you how money completely transformed that society once it was introduced,Did you not read my post?How can you make such arguments if you did?My point is that we have lived in a materialistic society for so long that we have forgotton what being human is.Money is a representation of the value we place on it you are right about that, the problem is we place so much value in it that we forgo our own humanity to possess it. It changes people who otherwise would have been different."The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness."This is absolutly not what i am saying, i am saying that we as humans have a natural way of living and existing and that money, possesions, religion..alter this natural state of humanity.People choose this unnatural state because it will help them get more things like money,power etc..Marx is all about class struggle between different classes mainly workers vs owners, what i am talking about is the natural state of the human condition.

[KanadaHye]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I disagree with this assertion for the following rationale:

You imply that somehow peoples' consciousness, spiritual make up, and morals are simply products of the time, and shift with the times. This is very close to what Marx was babbling about in his "materialist conception of history," also known as historical materialism. The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness. In the process, aside from the many errors and fallacies he commits in such an assertion, he denies that we have free will, and implies that we are nothing more than a middle ground between a sponge and putty with no originality.

People have always been "materialistic," because that is an innate human trait and feature. To use a reference from the Bible, man is in a "fallen" state: therefore, he is imperfect. He has always had his imperfections. This is not an argument about a past era of goodness or utopia. If you presume and read anything about that into this, you are reading things into the discussion that do not exist. Money is simply a means and a medium of exchange. It is only representative of the value we place on it and it has had many different forms over time. Do not think that prior to money, in the age of barter or cavemen, that people were not materialistic, or possessive or engaged in feuds over this lust for booty.

Just wanted to clarify.

Excellent point. Money is a measure of the value we put on material objects and services. The more rare things are, the higher value we put on them. There is an ABUNDANCE of diamonds on the planet.... yet we pay an absurd amount for them... why? Are they rare? In essence, no.... but because you can't find one in your backyard, you pay the price. Why do we value a shiny rock? Somebody convinced society it was rare and ever since, we've been blindly using it for cultural reasons. Is it really a measure of "love". Of course not, but try convincing society it isn't.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Yes i do but insulting people to make your point weakens your argument plus it looks bad and you are insulting another person.Luckily you can get away with insults on the internet unless a moderater kicks you out but in rl things can be different.

Not really, you reacted exactly like I thought you would react... after all, you're only human.

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

You do realize my insult was to make a point don't you? I hope so

Yes i do but insulting people to make your point weakens your argument plus it looks bad and you are insulting another person.Luckily you can get away with insults on the internet unless a moderater kicks you out but in rl things can be different.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Thats much better KanadaHye. You actually made valid points and managed to do it without insults. You are right you cannot escape those things because they are so prevelant in our lives but you can be aware of them and their influence on you and those around you.By having this awareness you gain a tremendous edge over those who do not have it because by understanding things you can, to some extent, controll their influence on you and even others.You also gain a better understanding of why people think the way they do, in your own society or even in another.

You do realize my insult was to make a point don't you? I hope so

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

You can't escape religion, you are bounded by laws.
You can't escape society, you are dependent on it.
You can't escape economy, its how you get shelter, food.

So what dictates "how you should be?"

How would your entirely liberal world function?

You can only make these claims because everything has already been done for you by previous generations.

You can disconnect yourself and live with mennonites, which is about as radical as it gets... however, I don't think they were affected by gas prices

Thats much better KanadaHye. You actually made valid points and managed to do it without insults. You are right you cannot escape those things because they are so prevelant in our lives but you can be aware of them and their influence on you and those around you.By having this awareness you gain a tremendous edge over those who do not have it because by understanding things you can, to some extent, controll their influence on you and even others.You also gain a better understanding of why people think the way they do, in your own society or even in another.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Saco i understand your perspective and it is probably shared by many but you really do not disprove or even make valid arguments against the points i made.I also very much disagree with your conclusion that "man must never have too much independence".I very much believe that finding your true self and being who you really are is better then living in a unnatural state dictated by economics or religion or.... It would sure be hard to be your natural self in todays society and hardly anyone is but knowing what that state is,is like finding yourself.Understanding humans and humanity for what it really is has been a liberating experience in many ways it also makes you very hard to lose most arguments because you are not hiding behind some artificial wall like religion or economicly based norms.It is not easy to shed what your parents, society, church....have been pounding into your head about how you should be and i can hardly claim to have succeeded but if you can look at things objectively the whole world will look a lot clearer to you.

You can't escape religion, you are bounded by laws.
You can't escape society, you are dependent on it.
You can't escape economy, its how you get shelter, food.

So what dictates "how you should be?"

How would your entirely liberal world function?

You can only make these claims because everything has already been done for you by previous generations.

You can disconnect yourself and live with mennonites, which is about as radical as it gets... however, I don't think they were affected by gas prices

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

Saco i understand your perspective and it is probably shared by many but you really do not disprove or even make valid arguments against the points i made.I also very much disagree with your conclusion that "man must never have too much independence".I very much believe that finding your true self and being who you really are is better then living in a unnatural state dictated by economics or religion or.... It would sure be hard to be your natural self in todays society and hardly anyone is but knowing what that state is,is like finding yourself.Understanding humans and humanity for what it really is has been a liberating experience in many ways it also makes you very hard to lose most arguments because you are not hiding behind some artificial wall like religion or economicly based norms.It is not easy to shed what your parents, society, church....have been pounding into your head about how you should be and i can hardly claim to have succeeded but if you can look at things objectively the whole world will look a lot clearer to you.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

It also compared it to 911, but again i ask you what is your point?

My point is how inaccurate those human/child mortality rates are since they are never measured during times of war, famine, etc. They are ideal figures that paint a rosy picture of the world.