The scourge of modernism.

The Protestant reformation was a decisive movement in the west toward abandoning its traditional cosmological beliefs. Fairies became false, Gnomes were deemed absurd and mysticism had no literal grounding in the scripture. Like the Protestants, change in Greek society began with Xenophon criticising the Homeric traditional interpretation – this lead to movement of ditached Greeks that eventually became agnostic. Though both Xenophon and Luther had very good intentions – their philosophies “demystified” the religious experience. 200 years after the reformation, Britain was the scene of massive social change, namely, the industrial revolution.

Businessmen of the time began to suggest that designing factories where the owner could supervise his workers would result in less theft. Here in the late 18th century we see the emergence of socialism 100 years before Marx. Why was theft a problem? Many theologians suggest that: Humans across Europe were becoming a meaningless source of labour and as church attendance was diminished stealing became very prevalent. This was the same time that John Locke posited that 'humans were innately noble and had no need of Laws". Sure John.

Indeed, Marx maintained the works of Locke and believed that the evolving human was ready to rebel against the capitalists and form a free held public state - communism. This system eliminates religion and replaces it with social naturalism, apparently, the scientific truth.

On another front, human morality died to the progressive human ego. The works of Clergy man Thomas Malthus, inspired the young naturalist Charles Darwin. Malthus posited that the geometric growth of population would find shortcomings with the arithmetic production sectors. Malthus also wrote on the chances of survival for the rich and poor and how certain plants dominated particular ecosystems. Conversely, Darwin in the light of reading Malthus, preferred the poor over the rich (like Marx) and believed economy had little to do with survival. Try telling this to a cholera infested peon from Gin alley please, Charles. In his work "The origin of species" Darwin plagiarised Malthus, then rambled on about finch beaks and how men we are "apes risen, not angles fallen". I fail to see how this is a compliment!

Darwin effectively told the average man, that by grace of his genes he could be superior. Since many people were illiterate this message was echoed through England... "Apes risen, not angels fallen". The problem was that science had very little to offer the common man - if anything it weakens his existence. Why? Humans are a creature of meaning - both higher and lower. When we substitute the higher spiritual 'eternal' aspect for the lower physical 'changing' aspect men go astray. A man working in a factory with little scientific knowledge can glean more from religion than from science. Sure, an academic with the privilege of money can find meaning in the diversity of biology and the complexities of the universe... but a lay man finds only confusion from this.

Soren Kirkegaard pondered the problems with religion in “fear and trembling”. Nietzsche, a nihilist, went a step further to declare that “God is dead”. An absurd statement as God is a metaphysical entity in the first place, and hence is beyond death. These philosophers identified how God became less relevant in society. Take the examples of Denmark, Sweden and Japan. You may say that these countries have all reached the social pinnacle: no poverty, low theft, highly educated populace – But alarmingly these countries have high incidence of suicide. Neuro-chemists have demonstrated that suicide is a combination of genetics and severe depression. Many people now dismiss that the individuals tragedy and struggle to find meaning as a simple genetic inferiority. However, a less known fact plays a more important role in the determinant of serotonin levels, specifically finding contentment and meaning; unfortunately religion is dead in these countries and has been replaced by modernism. Although, both Denmark and Sweden are predominantly Lutherans, in the census some >80% of Swedes did not believe in God. Similarly, in Japan Shintoism has been reduced to ridiculous stories about how grandpa once saw a dragon by the water-fall. As for Buddhism, very few Japanese even practice, little loan hold true to vegetarianism. Additionally, abortion rates are very high, so one can perceive that the sacredness of human life has diminished value in these countries listed.

It is evident that the world as a whole is slowly abandoning its traditions. The reformation facilitated the trend in Europe, and still provides a measure of this trend. England was certainly on the pulse when it came to modernist philosophy – which has become the staple diet of the modern socialist state. The mercantilists played a role in this as they wanted to take the power from the kings, just as an eager communist may desire to take the power from the mercantilist (bourgeoisie). Each time Humans break from tradition and favour modernism, the leaders become more laconic as do the ages. The works of Locke, Darwin and Nietzsche are instrumental in understanding modernism and naturalism. This is not the first age to favour natural explanations in history; ancient Greece had its period of agnostics shortly before “the fall”.

Modernism fails to answer the meaning of existence, its purpose and consequences. Its main purpose is to serve a state that is quite content to have its people ignore morality and feel rewarded for ignorance. To the businessman biotechnology means profit, and modernism is a great way to sedate people. This is the wrong doing of the passionate archaeologist modifying chimp skulls to find the “missing-link” to the indoctrinated lay man who votes on the chance for a cure to disease even if it comes at the meagre cost of a few embryos!

You sure talk alot.

No type of "-ism" can ever fully answer the questions concerning "The meaning/purpose of life" because everyone's life has a different purpose. All of the -ism's that exist are merely social groupings utilized so that we as human beings don't feel so alone all the time. That's how I see it anyways.

I'd rather humanity try (and most likely fail) to achieve 'enlightenment' through its own devices rather than have our meaning for existence spoon-fed to us.

OK, interesting points brought up there, but then again, I do not agree with many things, yet I find your opinion very refreshing.

Anyway, first of all, I must say we are not in modernism, but post-modernism, the time the writer and critic García Posada called "deep idiocy" (And thats an example of quoting without a need to do so, yay for pedantism).

However, I think you fail in many aspects of your analysis. Let me point out some things:

how men we are "apes risen, not angles fallen". I fail to see how this is a compliment!

First, I believe that the believe in God, when not taken to the extreme of self-destrcution, is something good for life, makes it easier, but I do not believe such belief or the dismiss of such belief can be rationally explained (And thats why agnosticism is for me the only trully rational aproximation, and even christians such as Kant said that).

However, apes risen, not angels fallen is a theory defending we evolve from apes, nothing more. You may not like the idea of evolving from a beast, but it is there, and as I said in the other post, I believe in it until I a better alternative is given.

Nietzsche, a nihilist, went a step further to declare that “God is dead”. An absurd statement as God is a metaphysical entity in the first place, and hence is beyond death.

1) Nietzsche is not a nihilist, he is a vitalist. Nietzsche fought against nihilism, becaue he said that- after the death of God- it was either that or the Superhuman (I won't say Superman). Nihilist is your average attention whore pasty-white angsty goth that writes awful poetry about crimson clouds and blood tears.

2) Such absurd statement is meant to be read as a metaphor. If you read Nietzsche and take what he says literally you will think he was high on crack or something like that.

However, a less known fact plays a more important role in the determinant of serotonin levels, specifically finding contentment and meaning; unfortunately religion is dead in these countries and has been replaced by modernism.

Yes, I know that. Religious people tend to fall less into suicide because they have the hope of a God looking after them and the fear of hell after suicide. Lack of religion sometimes gives the feeling life is meaningless, and it may be. I have nothing to say against that.

However, I do not believe abandoning some aspects of tradition is that bad. It is useful to believe in God, but it is not a rational anwser to what we are doing here, just a hypothesis.

Modernism fails to answer the meaning of existence, its purpose and consequences. Its main purpose is to serve a state that is quite content to have its people ignore morality and feel rewarded for ignorance. To the businessman biotechnology means profit, and modernism is a great way to sedate people.

And yet, die religion ist das opium des volkes, religion is the opium of the masses. Like it or not, such alienation occurs under religious thinking too. It may give a meaning to life, but it is still purely hypothetical. And having a book telling you not following the ten comandments drags you into hell is not what I believe to be oposed to "sedate people". I used to be a catholic, used to try to follow the ten comandments, and yet of course it was impossible, because there are "sins of thought", and not having "impure" thoughts is against nature. In other words, following a book someone wrote, God or human, is not freedom.

Yet, after the death of God, there has been no superhuman, but alienation to the capital, where pragmatism rules as the only morality, do what is useful, don't think, be an idiot so we can control you, be our grey mechanism in the system of production, our tool, and we will sustain your life, your security. That is what Nietzsche called the sheep, and that is why I defend wolves above any sheep, because wolves are the fighters, the rebels, the ones refusing to submit. Nietzsche defended wolves too.

So my point is that going back to tradition will not free anyone. Not tradition nor the capital, I believe, will help us. To me, the way to actually liberate from the chains of everything, religion, capitalism or whatever, is through the principles exposed in the introduction of a certain document written in Koninsberg, in 1784:

An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"


Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts.

Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating the;r own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.

-Immanuel Kant

I find myself agreeing more with Shadow Nexus, particularly on Nietzsche, though he did go quite mad. His statement; "God is Dead" came into existence after Darwin had made his discoveries and Nietzsche was making an observation on the repercussions that would have in modern (late 1800) soceity. As for being in a post-modernist era now I am not so sure, I sit on the fence as far as this is concerned as many historians believe modernism is still in effectl, particularly in literature.

Modernism started with enlightment as a way to overcome the religious and political alienation, and the coming of post-modernism occured in the crisis of ideologies that found it's culmination in the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

I prefer modernism. Seriously.

Actually, I spoke of modernity and its prior existentialist philosophers, who shaped the era. However, there are many theories on the modern era: Traditionalism equates the "modern era" about the time of the renaissance after Christ was given a human face and form. A rapid break down in traditional values occurred in this time and the school that grew up in the monasteries, namely, science (see the number of priest who had an interest in science) gained momentum in the public eye. Galileo intentionally wrote in Italian to gain the interest of the public man. Philosophy is more pedantic about the specific periods, however, all things being equal there is much argument even within the fraternity. Essentially, the modernism experienced in society in the 1800's to 1940's was the child of a breakdown in - tradition, then in art, then social policy. The communist state and Nazi Germany are considered to be the 'highest' expression of this breakdown. In the same way that Napoleon restored traditional systems to France, one could argue that America restored (enforced) tradition through various mechanisms in post war Germany and Russia. Look at all the people who returned to the churches after reform in Russia.

"As for being in a post-modernist era now I am not so sure, I sit on the fence as far as this is concerned as many historians believe modernism is still in effectl, particularly in literature."
I agree, many apparatus are still at play in politics and culture.

Sure Locke was prior to Kirkegaard, but he was instrumental in the assertion that man was inherently good natured... i.e. he was lawful and abiding with ethics.

"However, apes risen, not angels fallen is a theory defending we evolve from apes, nothing more. You may not like the idea of evolving from a beast, but it is there, and as I said in the other post, I believe in it until I a better alternative is given. "

Yeah, the Catholics accept that evolution is the most likely natural explanation for man... fine. The problem is when men favour naturalism over spiritual 'progress'. Men need to find the eternal truth as opposed to changing theories.

The world book encyclopaedia described: [That] Nietzsche had difficulty remaining true to Nihilism, as Nihilism dictates that even a belief in Nihilism is contrary to the philosophy. This may have driven him to insanity. Nietzsche did not really know what to believe in the end - he just became a fragmented mad-man.

Marx, an alcoholic, had a bone to pick with the establishment. The opium for the masses asserts that religion offers some form of euphoric reward, when in reality, religion seeks to eliminate the ego.


Immanuel Kant fell victim to the device of demystification. In this he stripped the main elements of the human ascension to the truth, but lost the supernatural element of the universe. This is the same degradation witnessed in "Buddhist monthly" or $2 astrology readings -
Are you familiar with the term "egg blowing" ? This is why philosophy takes the mystical experience away from religion, leaving a husk of altruism, which appears absolutely true and practical, but leaves the 'inspired' no path to connect to his tradition. I will concede that Kant was admirable in his appeal to preconceived forms and shapes (reminiscent of Plato).

Essentially, the modernism experienced in society in the 1800's to 1940's was the child of a breakdown in - tradition, then in art, then social policy. The communist state and Nazi Germany are considered to be the 'highest' expression of this breakdown

Communism is, in fact, the highest expression of the triumph of modern values through enlightened reformism. Well, that would be the day it worked, not Stalinism.

Yeah, the Catholics accept that evolution is the most likely natural explanation for man... fine. The problem is when men favour naturalism over spiritual 'progress'. Men need to find the eternal truth as opposed to changing theories.

You mean the theory of evolution is not a stable truth? It is a theory, and the theory does not change, the species the theory refers to do. And the world is in movement, even if behind matter there is truth. I think Aristotle already treated that enough in his "Metaphisics".

The world book encyclopaedia described: [That] Nietzsche had difficulty remaining true to Nihilism, as Nihilism dictates that even a belief in Nihilism is contrary to the philosophy. This may have driven him to insanity. Nietzsche did not really know what to believe in the end - he just became a fragmented mad-man.

...

Buy a new encyclopedia. Nietzsche had a degenerative illness that turned him mad (Siphilis, I believe). I insist, Nietzshce was not a nihilist. I have read Nietzsche, and I even know the Spanish translator of his books, he works in my university...and no, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. Nihilist comes from "nihil", meaning "nothing", believing in nothing.

Marx, an alcoholic, had a bone to pick with the establishment. The opium for the masses asserts that religion offers some form of euphoric reward, when in reality, religion seeks to eliminate the ego.

First, Marx alcoholism has nothing to do with his theories, you are falling in the ad hominem fallacy. Next, religion gives a reward: Heaven. That if you behave. So Marx believed that religion tamed the people and convinced them this life was unimportant and that eternal life was what really was important, thus making them nice sheep that would never rise in rebellion against the capitalist state.

Immanuel Kant fell victim to the device of demystification. In this he stripped the main elements of the human ascension to the truth, but lost the supernatural element of the universe. This is the same degradation witnessed in "Buddhist monthly" or $2 astrology readings -
Are you familiar with the term "egg blowing" ? This is why philosophy takes the mystical experience away from religion, leaving a husk of altruism, which appears absolutely true and practical, but leaves the 'inspired' no path to connect to his tradition. I will concede that Kant was admirable in his appeal to preconceived forms and shapes (reminiscent of Plato).

Uh? Victim of demystification? Supernatural element of the universe? Kant was a philosopher, he developed his theory through logic, he attempted to define the subject, the individual and it's capability of comprehension and knowledge. He did not need "mysticism".

"Communism is, in fact, the highest expression of the triumph of modern values through enlightened reformism. Well, that would be the day it worked, not Stalinism."

When the masses rebel a tyrannical ruler always emerges as the victor. Communism is a movement of disorder as it relies on a break down in tradition, inviting a diminished rule to proceed. Hierarchy is a requirement of any system, even communism, which as history demonstrates tends to produce the very worst rulers. The argument that we have not witnessed a 'true' demonstration of communism is common amoung the Marxist faithfuls.

You presented some interesting points on Nietzsche!

However, Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" -(Will to Power). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" -(Will to Power).


"First, Marx alcoholism has nothing to do with his theories, you are falling in the ad hominem fallacy. Next, religion gives a reward: Heaven. That if you behave. So Marx believed that religion tamed the people and convinced them this life was unimportant and that eternal life was what really was important, thus making them nice sheep that would never rise in rebellion against the capitalist state. "

Most alcoholic hobos ramble on about the vicious state and its wicked social externalities. The difference is that we usually ignore their rubbish; however, Marx was the exception to the rule.

"Uh? Victim of demystification? Supernatural element of the universe? Kant was a philosopher, he developed his theory through logic, he attempted to define the subject, the individual and it's capability of comprehension and knowledge. He did not need "mysticism"."

You seem to underestimate the role metaphysics plays in the origins of philosophy. Epistemology for its own sake is quite worthless, and results in the academic banter witnessed in the last days of Rome. Thankfully for Rome a new tradition (Christianity) established itself, rejuvenating intellectual thought such as St. Augustine - (De Civitate Dei), and St. Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologica).
Without mysticism, the human kind would still be the animal untamed in the cave.

Additionally, the reward of religion is one of separation from the ego, not the creation of a material paradise (as in communism). I would go one step further to say that any ideology, communism included, that proposes a material paradise is flawed. Clearly, this existence is one of suffering and despair, so one must devote his full efforts to work away from physical appetites as opposed to feeding them. Communism provides a simple way to break down our traditions, to create a short lived party on May day, only to result in oblivion of the human spirit.





Just as an aside - Which institution are you taking philosophy at? Spain has an outstanding heritage in the disciplines of Literature and humanities. I am envious of the architecture in Salamanca, domain of Spain's oldest university.

Bah, :bou::bou::bou::bou:, I posted a long reply to this and damn Explorer crashed. So now you get a very brief version.

When the masses rebel a tyrannical ruler always emerges as the victor.

Constructivism. There, this was a long paragraph. But I'll leave it there: Constrctivism, ergo fallacy.

The argument that we have not witnessed a 'true' demonstration of communism is common amoung the Marxist faithfuls.

Because we have not witnessed it. Trust me, if there was a real communist state, I'd be living there.

However, Among philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche is most often associated with nihilism.

In fact, it's vitalism he is associated with, he inherited a lot from Arthur Schopenhauer. Then again, tyes, I do admit there are a lot of nihilistic values in his philosophy, that I can't deny, specially in terms of morals, he is a moral nihilist. Also, his thinking changes through time, you can see a lot of differences between his books, and in some periods he was more nihilist, yet never a nihilist.

Most alcoholic hobos ramble on about the vicious state and its wicked social externalities. The difference is that we usually ignore their rubbish; however, Marx was the exception to the rule.



...

You seem to underestimate the role metaphysics plays in the origins of philosophy. Epistemology for its own sake is quite worthless, and results in the academic banter witnessed in the last days of Rome. Thankfully for Rome a new tradition (Christianity) established itself, rejuvenating intellectual thought such as St. Augustine - (De Civitate Dei), and St. Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologica).
Without mysticism, the human kind would still be the animal untamed in the cave.

Um...how are you using mysticism here? For me mnetaphysics is beyond physical phenomenons, and such ideas are reached through suposition following some logical aspects, like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant did. I relate mysticism to something much more spiritual but far less logical, even if...shall I say...more poetic? Y can talk about mystical poets, like San Juan de la Cruz or Santa Teresa de Jesús.

Clearly, this existence is one of suffering and despair, so one must devote his full efforts to work away from physical appetites as opposed to feeding them. Communism provides a simple way to break down our traditions, to create a short lived party on May day, only to result in oblivion of the human spirit.

1. The idea of existance of suffering and despair is very medieval, precisely the attitude Marx critizized, because people with such attitude were easily dominated as they did not believe their lifes could get better and longed for paradise. As for me, I do not share your opinion either, simply for the reason I am agnostic, thus I don't know if God exists, and if he exists, I doubt he has humanly comprehensible moral values like those stated in the Bible. In fact, if God is perfect, he should not be worried about if we decide to go to bed with people we are not married with. He is the creator of the cosmos.

2. Communism is not "physical appetites", that is for capitalism, that proposes an unsustainable system of opulency. In fact, communism requires some lack of economical (Not intellectual) ambition from people. If you want a large mansion, four whores with silicon boobs, lots of pizza and a luxurious car, just trust capitalism can provide it if you work hard enough to step on the heads of your rivals and sink them. Or if you get the inhertiance from Daddy.

Just as an aside - Which institution are you taking philosophy at? Spain has an outstanding heritage in the disciplines of Literature and humanities. I am envious of the architecture in Salamanca, domain of Spain's oldest university.

Salamanca is amazing, yes, but sadly that building is no longer used for classes, if it was, I'd probably go there just cause I love it. Now they work in new buildings an the old university is open for visits. This does not happen in the university of Barcelona where I work, where the old building is still in use. However, it's not half as good as Salamanca's, and philosophy is teached in a not so beautiful building that looks like some weird alien base from the outside.

There, thats a short version of my last post. I hate Explorer.

"Bah, :bou::bou::bou::bou:, I posted a long reply to this and damn Explorer crashed. So now you get a very brief version."

I can relate to this pain!

"Constructivism. There, this was a long paragraph. But I'll leave it there: Constrctivism, ergo fallacy."

To the historian a break away from traditionalism has always produced a new regime with more holes than the previous. Some examples include, France, Russia, China...

France was a nightmare after Louis Lost his head - Robespierre was a mongrel to the people, and the people were confused to see that the rebellion produced a loss in business activity and living standards. That was until le petit corporal restored the tradition.

Russians are happier today, without Gosplan or the anti-religious doctrine of communism.

Chinese had a long history of herbal Taoism and mystic practice past on through the family... THIS WAS OUTLAWED UNDER COMMUNISM! Millions went into poverty until economic reform in 1979!!

Communism is just a concise plan to deceive the people into believing that they can have all the privileges without working for them. In the end the system collapsed and the people were rescued from a schlock red banner - and returned to their identity that their forefathers worked for. People need good leaders, not bad ones as we have seen under communist regime. I am also dubious about such organizations as the UN and European Union, as these systems provide the economic climate for political globalisation. These systems are more market savvy Neo-commie regimes.


"Because we have not witnessed it. Trust me, if there was a real communist state, I'd be living there."

Could I recommend George Orwell's Animal Farm?


"1. The idea of existence of suffering and despair is very medieval, precisely the attitude Marx critizized, because people with such attitude were easily dominated as they did not believe their lifes could get better and longed for paradise. As for me, I do not share your opinion either, simply for the reason I am agnostic, thus I don't know if God exists, and if he exists, I doubt he has humanly comprehensible moral values like those stated in the Bible. In fact, if God is perfect, he should not be worried about if we decide to go to bed with people we are not married with. He is the creator of the cosmos."

A physical paradise is impossible...Our physical existence is subject to change, so we must seek to attain the infinite.
As for the bible... This is but one mode of delivery, and within this mode the truth of Love is quintessential to finding virtue, hence the love of Jesus. The idea of oneness is crucial in understanding the monotheistic truth... One universe, One God and One Love... When you sleep with someone outside marriage you are simply going outside the system of oneness!... This would be comparable to a buddhist eating meat! (as this prevents others on the path).


"2. Communism is not "physical appetites", that is for capitalism, that proposes an unsustainable system of opulency. In fact, communism requires some lack of economical (Not intellectual) ambition from people. If you want a large mansion, four whores with silicon boobs, lots of pizza and a luxurious car, just trust capitalism can provide it if you work hard enough to step on the heads of your rivals and sink them. Or if you get the inhertiance from Daddy."

I do not trust the Mercantilists either!! Indeed. If you are obsessed with a world of equality, where the uninspired proletariat lives in a simple, unproductive world of work: then this is what you will have. The problem under communism is that the economic rewards are less that the marginal utility of leisure... This equates to political reform which FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work! The appetite is leisure of course! and in communism there is theoretically more leisure time (Das Kapital) the worker chooses his activities.
What was more alarming was the Marxist production function... Where a chief is the producer while the waiter is an inefficiency! Not only the insulting words of a delerious alcoholic but economically unsound... Clearly, any 'value-added' to a product even if it is simple logistics or service, is economically sound (see Adam Smith on production - who actually wrote many years before Marx)... So Marx was not only a flawed social commentator but a weak student of economy!

Also, considering your comment: qoute - "..." Or neglegence of a comment! In silence, I can only accept that you agree with me; that Marx was not exactly a role-modle of a man.

Anyhow! Denmark and Sweden have achieved social “egality”, largely due to economist Knut Wicksell (proto Keynesian) reforms… Not through radical means such as hanging the Regent!

"philosophy is teached in a not so beautiful building that looks like some weird alien base from the outside."

What a shame! In Australia, Melbourne’s federation square is somewhat questionable.

To the historian a break away from traditionalism has always produced a new regime with more holes than the previous. Some examples include, France, Russia, China...

As I said, that is constructivism, you attempt to use empirical experience as a reasoning to proove your point. This is deduction, it is also used scientifically, and it is also bound to be flased (Ever read Popper?). Marx did the same error, but he was more cautelous when expressing himself, chapter one of the Communist Manifesto (Chapter one, not the introduction of "a ghost walks in Europe...") he says "History up to today has been the fight of classes". Up to today, that is. And he was right, although I know it's not as simple as black and white, since most revolutionary ideas are developed by the dominating class (Enlightment, Communism...). Then again, today the low classes have becomed idiotized and alienated, meaning no proletariat conscience, meaning no fight class, meaning that idiot- Fukuyama- thinking this was the end of history (No, it's just the second volume). So basically, you can't make a general rule out of cases. However, you can say "revolution TENDS TO end with tyranical leaders". Yes, it does, and that is mainly because revolutions are awfully carried out. I believe it was Pablo Neruda the one who said that before changing the top, we must change the low first.

Bah, should have left the long paragraph in the other post.

Russians are happier today, without Gosplan or the anti-religious doctrine of communism.

Uh, OK, communist Russia is far from any utopia, specially during Stalin's rule, probably the most horrible man who ever existed...well, one of them. Yet in the last period of the regime, the last years of the 80s, where censhorip ended (Glasnost)...well, I believe it was better than now, or at least so says my father, who has travelled to Russia many times, both in the 80s and in the last years. His words more or less were: "Socialist Russia was certainly not a paradise, but at least you don't have beggars in the street like you do now".

Oh, and a little point...Russia was never communist. Nor was Korea, China, Cuba...none is called officially communist, but socialist. Communis is where there is no state, socialism is the period between capitralism and communism.

Communism is just a concise plan to deceive the people into believing that they can have all the privileges without working for them.

No, it is about covering the basic necessities of people. And stoping alienated work.

Could I recommend George Orwell's Animal Farm?

I read it. Thats was a critique to Stalinism, I believe Orwell was torvskyst (I spelled that wrong, didn't I?). Well, he was certainly to the far left, or at least that is what he seemed like in "Homenage to Catalonia".

Could I recommend Willam Goldwin's (And spelled that wrong) Lord of the Flies? That book has two readings, one talks about man being intrinsecally evil and the other seems like an apology to Rousseau's Social Contract and "Speech about the origin of unequality between men". I recommend those too, Rousseau is wonderful.

A physical paradise is impossible...Our physical existence is subject to change, so we must seek to attain the infinite.

Ah, certainly it is impossible. But we can get better than this, certainly better than this.

And as for attaining the infinite...infinite is a complex term, you don't even know of the existance of an infinite being. You can believe that God exists, but you can't know it. Unless you're Jack Chick or something.

When you sleep with someone outside marriage you are simply going outside the system of oneness!... This would be comparable to a buddhist eating meat! (as this prevents others on the path).

Um...I would, then again I do not believe in the bible, nor do I believe in marriage, nor in Quevedo's "ash they will be, yet ash in love" (Ash or dust, I know the poem and the Bible in Spanish). My point is that since I do not know if God exists, I find no reason to follow the path a book tells me to follow, since that would mean lack of freedom. If people want to follow it, then fine, but thats not my case. I'm agnostic after all.

If you are obsessed with a world of equality, where the uninspired proletariat lives in a simple, unproductive world of work: then this is what you will have.

Eh, no, it is neither what I am obsessed with or what I will have. Equality is not what I believe in, at least not total equality. I believe, though, every person should have their basic necessities covered, and that wealth should be distributed based in the necessities, not the social position. A pianist needs a piano and a philosopher, writer or poet needs books. A piano is more expensive than books, or a whole collection of Plato and Aritotle books translated by Gredos plus a good edition of Marx Capital, Nietzsche's bibliography and a full collection on medieval, renaissance and modern philosophy, along with the Koran, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching and a whole collection of essays on theology...that is probably more expensive than a piano. So..you get my point, it's not exact equiality, it's just satisfying the needs.

Oh and please, don't tell me the philosopher of a communist state would have to go to a bibliotheque (Library, whatever it's called in English) to get his books. OK; maybe he would, I was just using the book thing as an example.

Second, what do you mean with uninspired abnd unproductive? Communism is meant to stop alienation in work, not foment it. And that takes me to...

The problem under communism is that the economic rewards are less that the marginal utility of leisure... This equates to political reform which FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work! The appetite is leisure of course! and in communism there is theoretically more leisure time (Das Kapital) the worker chooses his activities.

Yes, it FORCES the liberated proletariat to do work. What do you expect, for products to fall from the sky? Marx critique faced on alienated work that did not mean the realization of the individual in work. Can I recommend Charle's Chaplin "Modern times"?

What was more alarming was the Marxist production function... Where a chief is the producer while the waiter is an inefficiency! Not only the insulting words of a delerious alcoholic but economically unsound... Clearly, any 'value-added' to a product even if it is simple logistics or service, is economically sound (see Adam Smith on production - who actually wrote many years before Marx)... So Marx was not only a flawed social commentator but a weak student of economy!

Well, all I know is that The Capital is regarded as one of the most important economy books, so I doubt Marx was a bad student. And about what you said....well, I study philosophy, not economy, and of course, Marx's economical theory is more on the background than the philosophical one. In other words, I can't reply to that because I admit my ignorance would lead me to fabricate a weak argument. However, if there is an error in Marx's economical theory, then it can be changed. It's not like I consider Marx the alpha and omega of philosophy. In fact, I have many other philosophers I like, not like those damn Marxist dogmatic assholes who call me "idealist spiritualistic burgeoise intellectual" just because I happen to like Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Lao Tse or Plato. You know, one of them even said "I do not read anything that may be found in a Church's library". Thats wonderful, because then it means he probably...dosen't read anything asides from crappy Stephen King bestseller novels. Or Danielle Steel. Well, those a very simple minded people, I believe (Dogmatic marxists, I mean).

Also, considering your comment: qoute - "..." Or neglegence of a comment! In silence, I can only accept that you agree with me; that Marx was not exactly a role-modle of a man.

Marx wasn't any role-model, but comparing him to a drunken hobo rambling is just...well, no commets. It's like comparing Saint Thomas to Jack Chick (www.chick.com) or Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com). Or St Agustine to your regular TV preacher that makes "miracles" in TV by praying God to cure people's cancers. In fact, I accidentally sintonized a pirate emission of an Evangelist channel that has fanatics preaching 24/7. Since I am agnostic I can just laugh at them, but my mother is a Christian and feels deeply ashamed by such an exposure of sectarian idiocy.

What a shame! In Australia, Melbourne’s federation square is somewhat questionable.

But hey, our university has an alien shaped library! I would post the picture, but I fear explorer to crash and send this post into oblivion.

Edit: http://www.esponjiforme.com/images/ovni.jpg

:D

"As I said, that is constructivism, you attempt to use empirical experience as a reasoning to proove your point."

I never denied this, as it was crucial in avoiding pure decentralisation. In short - without government or a state to plan public goods e.g. libraries (biblotech is French) or railways or roads, then nothing happens. I would never personally fund a road or library, even if it increased total social utility, as my benefit is reduced in relative terms.

If there was no state (communism), black markets would emerge to provide goods that are cheaper to manufacture in collusion (firms etc...) as individuals cannot produce everything. In fact if the latter is the case i.e. individuals are expected to produce everything as is the case for the peasant - production will slow or even cease! As the pay- offs for the peasant are less than the pianist.

"Oh, and a little point...Russia was never communist. Nor was Korea, China, Cuba...none is called officially communist, but socialist. Communis is where there is no state, socialism is the period between capitalism and communism."

This is like saying that America is not pure capitalist... As Americas government creates subsidies and regulates certain market forces. If we took these away then each person could work, produce and gain a profit respective of his or her productivity. Government forces such as Taxes and inflation hurt the pure capitalistic market.

Besides this Communism goes against the grain of nature as it removes the hierarchy... Even insects have a hierarchy, as there is efficiency in order. Disorder may be more efficient on the microscale, as Fourier suggested prior to Marx (on returning to small communes) ... However, try to co-ordinate a massive hive (society) and you will see that hierarchy is mandatory. - Even heaven has a hierarchy of angels!

"In fact, I accidentally sintonized a pirate emission of an Evangelist channel that has fanatics preaching 24/7. Since I am agnostic I can just laugh at them,"

Well your not Robinson Crusoe here!

I must say I love that building!!
It looks like there was a guy hanging from the left hand side ... do you have an explanation for this?

Uh, OK, communist Russia is far from any utopia, specially during Stalin's rule, probably the most horrible man who ever existed...well, one of them. Yet in the last period of the regime, the last years of the 80s, where censhorip ended (Glasnost)...well, I believe it was better than now, or at least so says my father, who has travelled to Russia many times, both in the 80s and in the last years. His words more or less were: "Socialist Russia was certainly not a paradise, but at least you don't have beggars in the street like you do now".
:D

Russia is not capitolist, no matter what economists may say. The most most most important thing in captiolism is ownership of private proproty. without that no one has colatteral on loans and there's economic stagnation. You may think a bunch of ex-commies on the street might not do well with that much money, and it may be very risky, but it works. Look at the Czek republic and south africa. These are both countries that gave their people their land and they've comparitivly taken off!

I would never personally fund a road or library, even if it increased total social utility, as my benefit is reduced in relative terms

I don't understand this. Care to explain?

If there was no state (communism), black markets would emerge to provide goods that are cheaper to manufacture in collusion (firms etc...) as individuals cannot produce everything. In fact if the latter is the case i.e. individuals are expected to produce everything as is the case for the peasant - production will slow or even cease! As the pay- offs for the peasant are less than the pianist.

Black market why? The lack of state in communism is supposed to come after years of socialism, a lot of years. The idea of the socialist period is to prepare the new generations to a world with no state, thus avoiding such things.

Then again, such idea can be flawed by the concept of the evil human nature, defended by many people. I do not believie, however, man is intrinsecally evil, because in that case, I would admit absolutistism to be the best system available. Why? It's just a logic relation of ideas, and I do not need to explain them, my dear little Thomas Hobbes did it in his not so dear little book, "The Leviathan". I'm sure you are familiar to it.

And as for the cease of production, I don't understand your point.

This is like saying that America is not pure capitalist...

No, it is not, no place is pure capitalist, because such idea means the installing of total anarchy in the market...but well, we're not far away from that, I believe.

Yet, the main essence of communism is the lack of state. I seriously find no relationship between that and Stalin.

Besides this Communism goes against the grain of nature as it removes the hierarchy...

It removes classes, not the total organization of everything. In terms of production, there has to be an organization. Hierarchical, probably yes, someone has to direct. Unless of course, there is an alternative way of organization, and yet I do not know of any, nor do I know if Marx proposed it in "The Capital" (Haven't read all the book).

I must say I love that building!!
It looks like there was a guy hanging from the left hand side ... do you have an explanation for this?

Oh, it's what we call The Ovni. And that guy hanging, according to the source page, is an English student who commited suicide because the ancient philosophy classes had so many readings on really smart philosophers he felt like crap. According to the site, his suicide note was: "I just wanted to go to the cafe, but I was attacked by ancient philosophy readings and I felt like a zero, so I killed myself". Then his body was hanged there to give example to the other lazy students.


...

Yet in reality it is a doll put as a reivindication against some reforms the goverment wished to apply into universitary educations. I like the other story better, though, it's more interesting.

"Russia is not capitolist, no matter what economists may say. "

... 1985 Perestroika? ...

I never said it worked, but the model is in place and hence a capital economy is in place - and it is working better than the inflation of the communist state (as inflation was considered a capitalist phenomenon the commies could not control it). The fact that Russians cannot procure loans is due to poor savings. Russia needs to increase revenues on Vodka (inelastic good) as cheap alcohol reduces productivity (Poland is another example). As for Czech rep. the quality export glass manufacturing helped restore its economy, not to mention the Swiss investment in the country. South Africa has experienced high inflation... It is expected that the monetary policy will slow growth before a recovery is witnessed.


"I don't understand this. Care to explain?"

Jeremy Benthams formula for total utility dictates that each individual maximises his or her individual utility for goods. This basically means that some goods must be provided by the state while others can be provided by the market.

The best example is a fire works demonstration... If Jack enjoys fireworks more than Jill then he will demand x1 for fire works while Jill, only x0. Despite the fact that Jill demand less fireworks per year than Jack, it does not mean she still won't see them. Now, if each person paid for fireworks in the economy, based on demand, then Jack would purchase at, hypothetically, at q3 while Jill at q1. However, everyone derives the same utility from fireworks as you can see them at 10m to about 2km!!! This means that Jack pays more per unit than does Jill!

So what is the outcome in a pure market economy? The answer is stagnation - As Jack will forgo fireworks just to equilibrate his schedule into line with Jills - the outcome is that nobody gets the fireworks display. However, if there is a tax funded body i.e. the state, it can work out the level of demand and provide the fireworks as a deficit of public finance. This also applies to roads, schools, parks, bridges! e.g. why would someone who doesn’t drive "personally" fund a road OR why would non university students fund education? The individual seeks to optimise their utility - So they purchase what they want, while the state delivers the products we need.

As an aside, in the USA, the railroad industry was deregulated in the 1800's - the result was many providers for railroad to New York (more profit) and NO railroads to country regions. This was absurd as many tracks actually ran along side one another - when ONE road would have sufficed, that is to say, why does a country need 5 tracks going to one place. One main track leading to all the regions would be tenfold more productive! Even if many places did not yield immediate returns. Australia observed market deregulation and decided that the government could provide railroads more efficiently than the market... Having said this, the rightly government in power here is shutting down many tracks due to "economic rationale".


"And as for the cease of production, I don't understand your point."

Ok, If I can have ALL of my basic good provided for me... My real income will increase due to the "substitution effect". What this means is that I can consume more of other goods. In theory this would increase production, but in reality as peoples wages increase they do less work! The labour function dictates: That an increase in wage, ceterius paribus, will increase the marginal propensity to consume. This means that people consume more leisure and work less. To draw close to home... If I gave you all you food and health care for free, would you have more money to spend "going out" and partying and drinking the very best wines...The answer would be yes.

"Yet, the main essence of communism is the lack of state. I seriously find no relationship between that and Stalin."

Stalin was not the only questionable man, Lenin was quoted "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" - These are hardly the inspired words.

"Unless of course, there is an alternative way of organization"

I do not think so... bees have a queen, Wolves have the pack leader and Humans today have the "Mercantilist politician/ egg blown regent" (in the west anyhow, but I think Nepal was the last true traditional monarchy so it may be world wide). If we step down to communism we won’t even have a leader. Lao Tsu wrote; Heaven follows the Tao, Nature follows Heaven but Man has ceased to follow nature... Clearly, we see a correlation between trends in politics and our movement from order toward chaos. Men like all other thing need hierarchy, and as Plato demonstrated the philosophic king is the best leader... the other ages of disorder follow. At present humans are in Plato's Bronze (merchant) age. Japan was in the silver until WW2, Nepal in the Gold until the massacre incident.

Das Kapital serves a criticism of capitalism more than a guide to establishing the communist state. Marx makes good argument against the exploitation seen particularly in the industrial period, but, as Simon Kuznets showed with the inverted U distribution that living stands rose above and beyond anything humans have witnessed prior to capitalism…But only after the welfare state was established. Living standard dropped in Britain in 1780’s as people left the farms and headed to the factories. Today, capitalism is quite “tame” and many unionists and neo-liberalists (neo-marxists) like the idea of a market that has good social provisions – as they concede that most jobs would disappear without the capital investment of the dreaded Bourgeoisies and the population would dramatically decrease due to starvation.

May I ask how much influence King Juan Carlos I, has in your country

... 1985 Perestroika? ...
I never said it worked, but the model is in place and hence a capital economy is in place - and it is working better than the inflation of the communist state (as inflation was considered a capitalist phenomenon the commies could not control it). The fact that Russians cannot procure loans is due to poor savings. Russia needs to increase revenues on Vodka (inelastic good) as cheap alcohol reduces productivity (Poland is another example). As for Czech rep. the quality export glass manufacturing helped restore its economy, not to mention the Swiss investment in the country. South Africa has experienced high inflation... It is expected that the monetary policy will slow growth before a recovery is witnessed.


what is marx's most important idea?
No private proproty.

land is the highest extent of privatism because land cannot be created unless you go uber-netherlands.

Russian peasents do not own their lands. Individuals cannot suceed if they don't have money to work with and they can't have money in any large quantity if they don't have any collateral. capitolsim needed a boost of perestroika but that perestroika proved that leftist and rightist economies cannot function well together in large portions. You can be america, a little left of right, or USSR, a little right of left, but to be totally capitolistic without land ownership is a recipie for disaster.

OK, thanks for the bits in economy. I am quite an idiot in such issues, after all I am into philosophy, in fact economy was the thing I failed at school.

And well, given my ignorance of the subject and admiting my inferiority in such concepts, I will not discuss because I realise I lack of arguments. I can't say you're right or wrong because I cannot support you or contradict you basing myself on my current knowledge. I think you'll need someone else to debate about such issues.

But let's get to the issues I can discuss about...

Stalin was not the only questionable man, Lenin was quoted "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" - These are hardly the inspired words.

Well, no, I do not agree in breaking a few eggs. Well, I guess it depends on the eggs and the omelette, but I do not believe in that rule. But I never defended Lenin either.

I do not think so... bees have a queen, Wolves have the pack leader and Humans today have the "Mercantilist politician/ egg blown regent" (in the west anyhow, but I think Nepal was the last true traditional monarchy so it may be world wide). If we step down to communism we won’t even have a leader. Lao Tsu wrote; Heaven follows the Tao, Nature follows Heaven but Man has ceased to follow nature... Clearly, we see a correlation between trends in politics and our movement from order toward chaos. Men like all other thing need hierarchy, and as Plato demonstrated the philosophic king is the best leader... the other ages of disorder follow. At present humans are in Plato's Bronze (merchant) age. Japan was in the silver until WW2, Nepal in the Gold until the massacre incident.

OK, let's see. You believe that hierarchy comes up naturally because you can look at such behaviour in the human kingdom. Bees have a queen, yes, wolves a pack leader (Except lone wolves) and so on. Yet, we know how bees or wolves act, but so far there has been no definite study to explain human nature, as our space of rationality allows us to emancipate from instinctive rules. Whatever Lao Tse wrote ( I do like him, and I can discuss about taoism if you wish, it's the religion I feel more identificated with and know more about asides from christianism, yet I am not a taoist) he was on the argument man had separated from the natural path. Good, but the question is if there is something as a "natural path". Taking the path of Ortega y Gasset's argumentation on techne, man is naturally rational (Don't talk about Freud now, please, you know psychoanalisis is not definate irrationalism), and as such it can change itself, it's perfectible. You can argument such thing as living without goverment is impossible. You can believe it.

And yet, I prefer not to. OK, so maybe it is true we need a hierarchy, I cannot deny that is a perfectably normal belief. In fact, it's probably true. However, as Neruda said in his nobel price speech (Heh, quoting is good), there are the ones who, being realistic, keep puting frontiers to advancment through their attitude. Those too bastract, on the other hand, fail to be able to communicate their idea. How to be more clear: Maybe the end of history is purely hypothetical, idealistic fiction we will never achieve, and yet, I believe it is a model to look up too, a reason not to give up in the fight for a better world (Then again, that fight can fvck up, yes). You probably know about Quijote, or Quixote (As I believe that is his name in English). In Spain, there are two types, Sanchos and Quijotes. Sancho Panza is that realistic person, he is in fact preety vulgar, simple man. Don Quijote is simply crazy, trying to fight windmills as if they were giants. Quijote fails to see the windmills, Sancho fails to imagine the giants. And I prefer to keep fighting windmills, and I will as long as I see the world is how it is.

And yet, if I had to accept a leader, then I believe I would need to agree with Plato. Certainly, if someone has to rule over us, I prefer king Solomon to Herodes, and Herodes seems the ruler here.

May I ask how much influence King Juan Carlos I, has in your country

Well, he is a tabu topic for many humorists, as some slight joking is accepted, but beware never to insult the...mental condition of his children or you get censored.

Yet, I could say the influence of the king...well, you know he has total power, and yet he leaves everything in charge of the president except for the moments he has needed to act, and he has acted well.

1- 1981, 27th of February- A coupe d'etat was attempted, and the tanks were in the streets until the king ordered everything to stop.

2- 2004, 14th of March- The goverment was manipulating information on the tragic terrorist attack on Atocha. The king got pissed and phoned the president demanding him to tell the truth. And...well...the king is a major figure.


As for the rest, he does awful jokes, he does lame speeches and smiles to the cameras. He also wins the gold cup in wind navigation competitions, he is in fact regarded as one of the best sportsman in Spain in such sport. In fact, he has lost little competitions, and no, he is not given any advantage, he really is good :b

And now his son is going to marry and I get the news on TV every time, talking about all the crap and money they will waste on the wedding, all coming from our pockets. Bah.

I must say I liked both of his two serious political interventions in politics, but I can't like the monarchy. Sure, he's preety good, I can't complain, and he saved our ass from another fascism, so I guess I must be thankful.


....



I say, let's kick his son out when Juan Carlos is dead.

John Law based his economic rationale on Land (prices) but Land moves too spasmodically, and hence prices fail.

"land is the highest extent of privatism because land cannot be created unless you go uber-netherlands."

Very true, Singapore does the same - but land also has a degree of worth not only in scarcity but in location. The tundra is worthless but a street in Hong Kong is worth big bucks... This was the main issue with Das Kapitals main assumption of land values. I would say that Credit replaced land as early as 1300's in Florence... It just that the Russian banks are aware of Russian MPS so they are reluctant to issue loans. Many Asian nations have long shistories of welath and little land ownership - the capital wealth and silver was what floated their capitalism. Besides this, if Russia created land subsidies they would just create inflation, and this would bring the economy down big time. They do not need a repeat of the 50's.



" I do like him, and I can discuss about taoism if you wish, it's the religion I feel more identificated with and know more about asides from christianism, yet I am not a taoist)"

Yes I like it too, but unfortunately you have to be born into or marry into Taoism. The practice is very esoteric and takes years to cultivate. Interestingly enough, I had no Idea (at the time late 90's) that the Tao te ching was even a religious text! I though it was philosophy. But the clarity appealed to me. After reading the Tao te ching, I began to consider the origins of philosophy and became more interested in religion.

"Good, but the question is if there is something as a "natural path". Taking the path of Ortega y Gasset's argumentation on techne, man is naturally rational "

But man does have a religious desire!...this is a natural phenomonia of the brains physiochemistry. Communism is devoid of religion and therefore is a feature of "man's knowledge" and is not inspired... We could also draw on the myth of prometheus or the myth of Eden and the forbidden friut... as a metaphor of communism.

"You probably know about Quijote, or Quixote"

Indeed, It is a brilliant work. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza discover the fleeing couple in a friendly gypsy camp. All are inspired by the romance of the night. As the vision of Dulcinea appears to him, Don Quixote realizes Kitri is not his ideal, but indeed belongs with Basilio. Suddenly the wind gains momentum. Don Quixote foolishly attacks a windmill, believing it to be a giant threatening Dulcinea's safety. Failing miserably, he collapses into a deep sleep.
Quixote, is at heart a traditionalist, who sees the old world being replaced by the modern. His conviction is so great that the evils in his quest represent those relatively new technologies of the new world. The windmill represents the rape of myth... that is to say man is becoming a drone of the technocrat and as a result his natural inclination and interest in the old mystical (represented by the gypsies) is eroded.

To me the Quixotes are the 1% of society who will die for what they believe in, while the Sanchos are the 99% of men who have not learnt (by no fault of their own) the falsehood of the changing world. Quixotes are in tune with the eternal realm - while Sanchos are obsessed unknowingly by the changing world. This is why Sanchos was such a lame ordinary everyday man, while Quixote was old-fashioned and inspiring.

Interestingly enough, I had no Idea (at the time late 90's) that the Tao te ching was even a religious text! I though it was philosophy. But the clarity appealed to me. After reading the Tao te ching, I began to consider the origins of philosophy and became more interested in religion.

Well, it is both things, I believe. At the time, frontier between religion and philosophy was not that clear. Look at pitagorism, for example.

I have read the Tao Te Ching and a very interesting book called The Taoist Gnosis by the teologist Carmelo Elorduy, it is a 300 page analysis on taoist philosophy and it's relation to other philosophies (It was hard to find, only one edition in 1961). I could say, after the reading, it's both philosophical and religious. And well, it's fascinating, that no one can deny.

But man does have a religious desire!...this is a natural phenomonia of the brains physiochemistry. Communism is devoid of religion and therefore is a feature of "man's knowledge" and is not inspired... We could also draw on the myth of prometheus or the myth of Eden and the forbidden friut... as a metaphor of communism.

Of course he has a religious desire! I don't care about what Marx or Nietzsche said, I believe religion is something wonderful as long as it is not taken to the extreme. Alienating? It can, it can be alienating and dangerous. Enlightening? Of course, as long as you know how to use it! I don't hate religion, I hate how it is used. I hate to listen to Osama Bin Laden claming to hold the truth about Allah as he reads passages of the Koran out of context, I hate to listen to your ultra conservative evangelist screaming God is American, I detest Mr.Phelp claiming homosexuals should be executed and I cannot stand your fundamenatlist zionist claming Jews are above anyone and claming everyone who is not with him is a nazi. Yet, my question is, how to make people see the real good point of religion instead of falling into fanatism?

About Prometheus...yes, well, but humanity is, or should be, Prometheus. Now humanity is more life Sisifo, or Narciso (Sisifus, Narcisus, whatever it's called in English).

Quixote, is at heart a traditionalist, who sees the old world being replaced by the modern. His conviction is so great that the evils in his quest represent those relatively new technologies of the new world. The windmill represents the rape of myth... that is to say man is becoming a drone of the technocrat and as a result his natural inclination and interest in the old mystical (represented by the gypsies) is eroded.

I believe your interpretation could be held correctly in modern times, but back then I believe Cervantes was attempting to describe the spirit of the dreamer, the idealist, after all. About this, and I don't know if you'll find it in English, Ruben Dario wrote a poem about.

If you look for a good critique against the drone and the technocrat, I highly recommend "Poet in New York" by Federico García Lorca.

Oh, I searched a little and found an English translation to one of my favourite poems in that book. There are two, in fact, I just posted the one that sounds better, even though the other is probably more faithful to the original:

New York's dawn has
four columns of ooze
and a hurricane of black pigeons
that splash about in the rotten waters.

New York's dawn howls
through the immense stairs
looking among the cornices
for the spiked roots of drawn anguish.

The dawn arrives and no one takes it in
because there's neither morning nor hope possible there.
At times furious swarms of money
pierce and consume the abandoned children.

The first that emerge understand in their bones
that there'll be no paradises, nor love without leaves;
they know that they are in the mud of chance and laws,
in games without art, in sweat without profit.

The light is buried by chains and noises
in impudent challenge to science without brotherhood.
For the slums have people who shake sleeplessly
like new dawns of a bloody shipwreck.


Well, I took it from...here... (http://delroz.bravepages.com/garden/canc9.html), and yes, that site has an embarrasing design and it's about..uh...Antonio Banderas singing. But it has the poem, on the low part of the page.

Also, if you like the poem, I recomend downloading "La Aurora de Nueva York" by Enrique Morente. It is the musicalized version, and while most non-Spanish people dislike it because it is very cultural (I mean, it is flamenco, not many people like flamenco) I find it very inspiring. Plus, Enrique Morente really transmits the lamentation through his voice, it realy vibrates with power.

To me the Quixotes are the 1% of society who will die for what they believe in, while the Sanchos are the 99% of men who have not learnt (by no fault of their own) the falsehood of the changing world. Quixotes are in tune with the eternal realm - while Sanchos are obsessed unknowingly by the changing world. This is why Sanchos was such a lame ordinary everyday man, while Quixote was old-fashioned and inspiring.

I agree, for me Quixote- despite his madness I do not consider as such- is by far more alive than Sancho Panza. Quixote is passion, he is strength and light, he is dream, he is art, creation. Panza is...well...realistic.

PS: Check your private messages.

"Yet, my question is, how to make people see the real good point of religion instead of falling into fanatism?"

This is a problem... But it emerges as Lao Tsu states "when the inventors arrive". This is because they put ideas into the populace head that do not really concern them. The simple folk on the farm are pure and noble with clearly defined roles. The Priest cast are intelligent and learned. Anyone can become a priest (European culture has good social mobility) all they need to is learn the scripture. Many priests developed the European Intellect from the Greek, Christian and Arab world (algebra for example) the Jesuits then established a strong tradition of learning. The problem with modernism is that it puts ideas in everyone’s head, which are often incompatible to a simple understanding of the cosmos. This creates the dissent and the fanatical alike.

Yes religion is important, as far as I know it established learning everywhere. Without it we would not have books or science, philosophy and so on.


"humanity is more life Sisifo, or Narciso"

Haha... Yes I agree.
The young men seem more interested in fashion and hair products, than working hard!


"Enrique Morente really transmits the lamentation through his voice, it realy vibrates with power."

This is something Westerners (non-continental Europeans) especially this generation do not appreciate. The most of the English speaking world has lost its appetite for the muse. I have listened to some Greeks singing poetry, and I must say that it conjured up some very sad emotions from the Greek psyche. It was called "Agapanthe". I have heard that in Greece the patrons of Bars and other social places listen to live poets and musicians, is this also the case in Spain?

The problem with modernism is that it puts ideas in everyone’s head, which are often incompatible to a simple understanding of the cosmos. This creates the dissent and the fanatical alike.

No, I disagree with that. Modernism moves on the ideas of the Enlightment, and that is not puting ideas on anyone, quite the contrary, it is liberating the mind from prejudice and using reason to achieve freedom and emancipation from the alienating factors of society.

Post-modernism is the one that blinds us with idiocy. As said before, humanity in modernism is Prometheus. In post-modernism, Narcisus.

The young men seem more interested in fashion and hair products, than working hard!

And that is what I call fashion victims, who have lost any concept of Beauty (And I believe Beauty is far more important than what it seems, and I am not refering to sexy models, I am refering to a trascendental and nearly sacred concept of beauty transmited through esthetical experience, the one Plato defended in Fedro...and Nietzsche, and Gauguin...). And that pisses me off, when I say I am in search for Beauty, people believe I am refering to sexy bodies and preety cosmetic-loaded faces. No, :bou::bou::bou::bou:, I am talking about real beauty, not sexual atraction. Nihil astra praeter, vidis et undas, "there was nothing more than stars and waves". Those verses of Horacius are Beauty. And Neruda, and Becquer. Beauty is more trascendental, and I hate how it is prostituted now, in silly advertisments or in Pamela Anderson's silicon boobs in the cover of Playboy. Ah, decadence.

This is something Westerners (non-continental Europeans) especially this generation do not appreciate. The most of the English speaking world has lost its appetite for the muse. I have listened to some Greeks singing poetry, and I must say that it conjured up some very sad emotions from the Greek psyche. It was called "Agapanthe". I have heard that in Greece the patrons of Bars and other social places listen to live poets and musicians, is this also the case in Spain?

Oh, good question. I'll be late for class, but meh, it's better replying at this:

You can hear some Spanish singing poetry, and in fact, we have a high apreciation for this people. This happens in anglosaxon cultures too, just remember Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen (Ah, Take this Waltz, what a wonderful musicalization and English translation of Lorca). However, I believe here such feeling is stronger, some songwriters such as the Catalan (Catalonia is in Spain...but it is not Spain...completly) Joan Manuel Serrat, the Spanish Luis Eduardo Aute or Joaquín Sabina, the cubans Silvio Rodríguez or Pablo Milanés, tango in Argentina (Enrique Santos Discépolo, Cátulo Castillo) and a long etc have become real symbols of the latin culture, and are still widely admired, and- as far as I know- more than Dylan and Cohen are in anglosaxon cultures.

This keeps also for traditional music, I like a lot. So yes, you can find Spaniards singing poetry, there are many cafes in some areas of Madrid and Barcelona where this kind of people sing (The non famous ones, the famous in concerts, of course :b).

And about listening to live poets and musicians, well, then again, yes, it happens. I am in a poetry group, every thursday we talk about poetry, comment on our poems and such, and well, we're more or less good, I believe (No angsty goth poems about blood tears).

And well, sometimes we recite on cafes. You know, some places have a microphone and a little chair, where anyone can come up and recite their poems, or a poem they like. I am rather shy for those things, I mean, going up there and reciting my poem in front of the people who go to the bar, but well, they listen, and they like it, so once you've done it a few times the thing becomes easier.

Then again, my poems are in Spanish, and I don't think I'd post them online. I can send one in a private message, if you understand Spanish. *points at sig* (Well, thats not mine, but Neruda is my main influence).

It's always a pleasure to talk to modernists because they still have reason intact. Postmodernists are a pain in the splonknon.

However, you will always have to face the fact that the pre-modern world and the christian world have always been seperate. It isn't a throwback to myth, it rejects myth and promotes knowledge. If man has been put in domination over reality, it doesn't make sense to run screaming from the spirits in a thunderstorm.

The fact is that truth is not necesarraly atheistic, and regardless of the fact that christians are currently trying to destroy postmodernism, fact will ultimatly destroy modernism.

It's always a pleasure to talk to modernists because they still have reason intact. Postmodernists are a pain in the splonknon.

Yeah, but little modernists are left today, thats the problem. Enlightment reformists are minumum in comparison to the neoconservatives and the post-modernists.

The fact is that truth is not necesarraly atheistic, and regardless of the fact that christians are currently trying to destroy postmodernism, fact will ultimatly destroy modernism.

Oh, don't generalize, I am with bringing post-modernism down, and I am happy some christians are. But the ones that shout louder, the priests on radio and TV, seem to be fine with postmodernism and neoconservationism. Ever heard one of them denounce the social problems brought about by capitalism? I have not.

Christianity has one real truth, the words of christ. All those too too many churches that act as you have explained are called the liberal churches and are not actually christian. We as the conservative church do not say this, christ and his apostles say this. As paul put it, if we cannot believe what the bible states literally and exactly, our belief is meaningless and our faith is dead.

The real facts of reality do prove christianity though. Name any field which you believe contradicts christianity and I will rebut. Take your pick.

"The real facts of reality do prove christianity though. Name any field which you believe contradicts christianity and I will rebut. Take your pick."

Not to throw this thread out of whack, but, if Christianity is fact, why are there other religions still?

Most interesting thoughts being thrown around in here. As of right now, I don't want to intrude into this debate, but if I see an opening later, maybe I'll post some thoughts of my own, though they'd appear insignificent when compared to the mighty words of those who've posted already.

Take care all.

The real facts of reality do prove christianity though. Name any field which you believe contradicts christianity and I will rebut. Take your pick.

OK.

Egyptians recorded the happenings of everything in their walls, through geroglyphics, or however it's written in English. OK; so if they even recorded the farming of every year (Temple of Sobek and Amon Ra, in middle Egypt, near Luxor)...

...why is there no recording of the plagues, Moses and the Jewish liberation? Where do you have Egyptian data of the plagues?

Also, it has some contradictions. May be through translation though, but here you have them:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

Again, the Bible talks about creation in 7 days. This is not to be taken literally, I suppose? It also speaks of the Earth being in the center. Both Lactancio and St Agustine used the sacred texts to justify the world being flat...

Egyptians recorded the happenings of everything in their walls, through geroglyphics, or however it's written in English. OK; so if they even recorded the farming of every year (Temple of Sobek and Amon Ra, in middle Egypt, near Luxor)...

...why is there no recording of the plagues, Moses and the Jewish liberation? Where do you have Egyptian data of the plagues?

Each individual plague was an affront to a particular Egyptian god figure, showing the power of God over that of the egyptian idols. What empire in their right mind would write anything to the extent of 'and then some slaves came and their God humiliated us all.' note also two facts. one, the pyramids, the most inconspicuous buildings on the face of the earth, are never mentioned in a hieroglyph once. Two, by adding the dates given in the bible together the text indicates that the time of the exodus is around the reign of amenhotep IV also known as akenaton. several believe that akenaton was the son of joseph's pharoh. The reason that the israelites were inslaved was, in this theory, because akenaton's monotheism was a perverted form of the israeli faith. any record of their God at all was striken from all records with a fair degree of sucess, and certantly the newly imposed polytheism is not writing a message of the power of 'aton'

Also, it has some contradictions. May be through translation though.
...
Oh dear, not these again! I've seen these all my life. They're all wrong, ususally because by refusing to see (not accept, mind you) but refusing to look at what the bible says accepting for the sake of argument it's premises. Jesus would be great. On earth he was not great. There is no heaven and he was not seated at the right hand of God, the epitome of greatness, so he was never great. We're not contradicting, you refuse to look at our premises, which is an acceptable apologia, except it does not indicate internal problems. Everything else is because you will not look at the idiom or figure or genre of the text, or because you quote the New International Version of the bible which I barely recognize as scripture. It's terribly messed up. You can only argue semantics in the greek/hebrew text.

Again, the Bible talks about creation in 7 days. This is not to be taken literally, I suppose? It also speaks of the Earth being in the center. Both Lactancio and St Agustine used the sacred texts to justify the world being flat...
While the world used in Genesis could mean eras, it doesn't. Eras of only plants would not live on earth without animal life. Science supports this: pollonium is a radioactive element that discolors rock as it decays. This discoloration, or radiohalo, can time how long the bedrock took to cool like tree-rings date trees. Most bedrock on earth solidified from a molten state in about three minutes, as indicated by the Institute for creation reaserch (before you go all: "bias!" on me realize that if that constitutes bias every scientist on earth that studies evolution has just as invalidating of a bias.).

Now for the really controversial stuff. Think deeply, because I want you to know how deeply you have been indoctrinated. According to relativity, no point in space is an absolute location. As such, an object being bigger does not make it the center. Objects orbiting a planet/star do not make it the center either. According to reletivity, there really is no center, so your reletive center is wherever you want it to be. Of course I believe that everything makes nice little elliptical orbits around the sun for the most part, but as far as reletivity goes, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Neither Galilleo nor copernicus were persecuted for stateing that the earth went around the sun, they stated that the planets make their 'spheres' around the sun, which the bible has nothing to speak on. If you still have any deep indoctrinational revulsion to what I have said, read this: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
That is the entire theory of reletivity as explained in words four letters long or less. After reading, prove to me that the earth goes around the sun without designating any absolute points.

Finally, the words of a church leader are not scriptural, Augustine was not God and thus you are free to state that anything he says is untrue and I will not count it as speaking against the bible, unless he is speaking of the bible, in which case you may critique his interperetations only without accusing the bible of untruth.

Any more problems. Really, I must inform you, these arguments are christian apologetics 101. They're soooo easy. Anything better?

Finally, the words of a church leader are not scriptural, Augustine was not God and thus you are free to state that anything he says is untrue and I will not count it as speaking against the bible, unless he is speaking of the bible, in which case you may critique his interperetations only without accusing the bible of untruth.

He was refering to a bible text where they refer to the world as being flat. I don't know where that text is, though, I'll try to find out, I have a tacher who knows a lot on Agustine.

one, the pyramids, the most inconspicuous buildings on the face of the earth, are never mentioned in a hieroglyph once.

Mind you, I regard having read about hieroglyphics talking about them. Of course, my memory is not perfect.

Of course I believe that everything makes nice little elliptical orbits around the sun for the most part, but as far as reletivity goes, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

Mind you? I am refering to the part of the bible where Job (Or was it Jacob?) says "Sun, quit going arround the earth" or something along those lines. That was used by Martin Luther to attack Copernicus. So are you saying the sun orbits arround the earth, as Jacob/Job said?

Also, taking the bible literally:

-How is it genetically possible for Adam and Eve to have children and those children to have children and so on, without genetic corruption?

-Apply the same to Noah.

- If love is a loving God and loves humanity, why does he practice mass killing? It sounds like a contradiction.

- How can a creator of everything have moral values applied to humans?

- In fact, how are the ten comandments supposed to be followed? I believe it is impossible, even for the saints, never to fall in mortal sin. In fact, I am continuously in mortal sin. How can't you not desire the spouse of another man? Sin of thought? Of course, then, I believe it was Calvin the one who pointed this out, already.

-If we are not supposed to kill (5th commandment), then why does Leviticus defend death penalty?


-Also, it falls into the antropomorfic god thing I never could take seriously. God has human shape? The eternal thing, the creator of everything, looks like a primate?


before you go all: "bias!" on me realize that if that constitutes bias every scientist on earth that studies evolution has just as invalidating of a bias.).

And yet, the alternative is creationism. So it should be scientifically believable that God created man?


Bah, anyway, this post I just did sucks, but I don't have time to look up to the texts I am refering to, so you will have to reply basing yourself on this weak things I just posted. Sorry, but I am late to class.

Oh, here, there's serious non biased evidence of the world being flat :rolleyes2:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

PS: Giordano Bruno rules

How can anyone suport Darwins theory is my question. It is a religion is what it is. It takes more trust to believe some fish started walking then some of these fish started to grow hair then those hairy monkeys started standing upright and talking, how could this happen!?!?!? O right the world is millions of billions of years old and time can do anything....well i have about 14 points to pove the earth cant be more than 10,000 years old

Uh, I believe it. Until something better comes up, I will believe in evolutionism. And I don't think God creating us all is a better theory.

And what are your 14 points on the world having less time than human species? And what are the dinosaurs? Did they live together, like in the Filstones?

And what are your 14 points on the world having less time than human species? And what are the dinosaurs? Did they live together, like in the Filstones?

Explain the dates of the human species

And yes no killing in the garden of eden so the dinosours wouldnt be hostile....as for the household chores i doubt it :D

(discuss in the thread i made)

"Of course I believe that everything makes nice little elliptical orbits around the sun for the most part, but as far as relativity goes, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that the earth is the centre of the universe."

Indeed...I would argue that the world is the habitat of man, and man being the measure of all things - that the world is the centre, symbolically. Our fathers spoke of the symbols of the universe, not ephemeral physic, which changes from day to day... and becomes disagreeable from decade to decade. Modernists are obsessed with the changing, improving universe, and evolution serves this egoism. Pragmatism is rational but it is cut down eventually and hence man looses vision of the eternal. Tradition simply wants us, as humans, to realise that the universe has purpose and existence is meaningful. This is our solace, living in a changing imperfect state.

I dont know u have me stumped with some of the points u make. And i think ur right whats in at the moment does seem to change probably from our need to leave a mark on our world in terms of history.

One thing hough about the embryos and curing disease... 'Sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few.'

Modernists are obsessed with the changing, improving universe, and evolution serves this egoism.

Evolution is not improving, evolution is changing. And it is a scientifical theory, not an ideological one. Without the modern attitude you seem to critizize, we would still be in a flat world whith the sun and planets going arround it.

Tradition simply wants us, as humans, to realise that the universe has purpose and existence is meaningful. This is our solace, living in a changing imperfect state.

Yet, why does the universe have a prupouse? Why is existence meaningful? I can't find sense to the origin of the universe, and I have no evidence to believe it has one, although I can hope it does, because it would be preety sad our existance is just a fruit of chance. But it could be. And God may not exist, nor eternal life, and we may just be complex computers that appeared out of pure chance. A sad idea, though.

Evolution is not improving, evolution is changing. And it is a scientifical theory, not an ideological one. Without the modern attitude you seem to critizize, we would still be in a flat world whith the sun and planets going arround it.

This is Darwinism at its mildest, where the primitive old world is fundamentally flawed and the modern is better. At its worst we have eugenics. Englishmen believed themselves and their modern west to be above the primitive Africans. However, humans in Africa enjoyed a rich and meaningful life; this was seen in their appreciation of nature and symbolism. And yes they believed in a "...flat world with the sun and planets going around it." What is wrong with this existence?

David Suzuki said that when he studied science he began to feel superior to nature... it was only when returned to tradition that the ecology came alive and became meaningful. Darwinism took away the meaning of nature. Additionally, complex formation make evolution improbable - and it has not been scientifically observed in the lab, with reproducible results... so until then it remains scientific ideology.


"And God may not exist, nor eternal life, and we may just be complex computers that appeared out of pure chance. A sad idea, though."

It does not matter what tradition - but they all assert that this natural changing world is a reflection of the eternal non-changing world. This unchanging aspect may not literally exist as we know it... it is merely a mode of knowing it. Plato had the forms, Christianity has heaven and Taoism has the nameless Tao. All it this means is that for this world there exists another world. In order to study this other world we need messages from it, wether by inspiration or from the prophetic voices. One cannot explain this world by looking within in it ... we cannot explain this worlds origins by looking at it alone. We must ascend outward to understand the inward.

Englishmen believed themselves and their modern west to be above the primitive Africans. However, humans in Africa enjoyed a rich and meaningful life; this was seen in their appreciation of nature and symbolism. And yes they believed in a "...flat world with the sun and planets going around it." What is wrong with this existence?

We are scientifically superior, that no one can deny. No, no, I'm not an etnocentrist, I believe they may have many factors where they are superior, such as knowing how to live without a ridiculously large opulency.

As for a rich, meaningful life...I don't know where the meaningful life is. Of course, I don't know what their activity was, but aren't you idealizing it a little bit? Maybe they were not so happy about their lifes, maybe htey depended too much on the fact they could not predict what nature would do, and thus being very vulnerable to the crops being awful that year, and producing illness and hunger. I don't know about African tribes, but in the islands of the south, Stevenson speaks about how illnesses developing in the forests have killed 80% of the population in a side of the island (I am refering to In the South Seas, I recommend that book). Then again, yes, people in Samoa did not have those problems, but they also knew more.

Investigation arround the nature of the cosmos is something natural in our culture, we wonder why this happens. Ortega and Gasset said that when the western saw a flower, he would pluck it out of the ground to observe it's roots and wonder why it grows, what is the arkhé of the things. An eastern will just stare at the flower in awe. I think both outlooks have positive things for development, but I'd rather have both.

It does not matter what tradition - but they all assert that this natural changing world is a reflection of the eternal non-changing world. This unchanging aspect may not literally exist as we know it... it is merely a mode of knowing it. Plato had the forms, Christianity has heaven and Taoism has the nameless Tao. All it this means is that for this world there exists another world. In order to study this other world we need messages from it, wether by inspiration or from the prophetic voices.

The Tao is something like the logos of everything, the eternal flow, the unchanging movement of nature, the arkhé. And the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao, or in other words, we are unable to fully understand the logos of everything. That I understand, and I agree with. Science is merely a strategy, a way of tying up truth, but mystery hides behind it. Yet this is a mystery that cannot be named or comprehended, as it trascends space and time. Science, however, is the useful rule, and yes, always bound to be denied, to be changed, but a way for us to attempt to understand at least a part of the everything. Rules we apply to nature to satisfy the question natural in our culture, and probably in the human race: Why?

Inspiration and prophetic voices? Inspiration through meditation? How do you know the words revealed through meditation are in fact revealing the mystery or if those are just interior revelations from yourself to yourself? Prophetic voices? How can I know I can trust the prophet, how do I know he's not an impostor?