Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The hot system is Democracy itself. We need to just submit computers to every citizen of requiring work ethic in the Communication worth of the political Economy. In Egypt I remember they closed down computers instead of bribing people by opening them up; and the case of the seventeen year old at Google over government stifling of the business franchising.
Which was the non-working philosophy? The hot "democracy" must working well to be addressed so hard about, but it lacked the developing pattern towards productivity; I really think so; Mobaruk may not be entirely to blame.
Last edited by tgnostic; 02-15-2011 at 10:13 PM..
Reason: deduction time
It is irrelevant, theoretically, for this theory, where "desperation" is, whether in the third world or in some US city. Desperation would be a communication; therefore socially, or of the individual psychic system-thought. The content of the communications could be examined by further communications, say the media. How these communications are received by observers (pity, anger, sense of right and wrong, etc) can be further observed in the same theoretical structures.
I am sure every hot system is thought to be a good idea at the time; otherwise it probably doesn't get too far. A failure merely reveals that stuff may have been overlooked when implementation was attempted; that is why it is hot (lacking details), some last for a bit and then burn out, some have staying power.
If one says the "ethical nature is a mutual co-existence between man and his environment" one needs to locate this "nature" because it sounds as if it floats between the two-man and environment; as an independent "thing". If using "man" as lumping all individuals together in a mass, taking out subjectivity; then dasein is lost and ethics can only be abstract.
If it is in him to be this way; then it would be something one is born with, but then ethics would tend to be universal as well as guilt; which I really can't buy (subjectively some individuals experience guilt for some action or thought that others do not).
I am not convinced man will play out his ethical nature, at least in a positive sense, history sort of confirms this. That is why there is guilt. Individually, a man may attempt it, but not in full success; one always violates his or the social ethic.
Dependent on two things-inner man coupled with his environment.
1. what is inner man?
2.what is meant by coupled?
If I understand this, then ethical behavior, can not be a structure structured up by the subjective individual that may be in conflict with the social. A man is more than a social being (for the other), he is also ego, so he is also a being for himself. The tendency is to see him only for the other, and then he is something to be used.
To lump all individuals together overlooks the different stages of development within each one.
As to democracy working well, well, it depends how one looks at it
Yes, generally, in America philosophy has been replaced by politics and religion. People don't like to discuss ideas, but prefer to argue over politics and religion.
Based upon recent findings following polls of youngsters between the ages of 18-25 I'd guess they're more restricted than that. I can't imagine much of an argument from the more than half who could not name the three branches of our government. 'Course during Katrina more than half of a similar group could not point to Louisiana on an unlabeled map of the U. S. and here we are quipping over whether or not to discuss philosophy.
It is irrelevant, theoretically, for this theory, where "desperation" is, whether in the third world or in some US city. Desperation would be a communication; therefore socially, or of the individual psychic system-thought. The content of the communications could be examined by further communications, say the media. How these communications are received by observers (pity, anger, sense of right and wrong, etc) can be further observed in the same theoretical structures.
I am sure every hot system is thought to be a good idea at the time; otherwise it probably doesn't get too far. A failure merely reveals that stuff may have been overlooked when implementation was attempted; that is why it is hot (lacking details), some last for a bit and then burn out, some have staying power.
If one says the "ethical nature is a mutual co-existence between man and his environment" one needs to locate this "nature" because it sounds as if it floats between the two-man and environment; as an independent "thing". If using "man" as lumping all individuals together in a mass, taking out subjectivity; then dasein is lost and ethics can only be abstract.
If it is in him to be this way; then it would be something one is born with, but then ethics would tend to be universal as well as guilt; which I really can't buy (subjectively some individuals experience guilt for some action or thought that others do not).
I am not convinced man will play out his ethical nature, at least in a positive sense, history sort of confirms this. That is why there is guilt. Individually, a man may attempt it, but not in full success; one always violates his or the social ethic.
Dependent on two things-inner man coupled with his environment.
1. what is inner man?
2.what is meant by coupled?
If I understand this, then ethical behavior, can not be a structure structured up by the subjective individual that may be in conflict with the social. A man is more than a social being (for the other), he is also ego, so he is also a being for himself. The tendency is to see him only for the other, and then he is something to be used.
To lump all individuals together overlooks the different stages of development within each one.
As to democracy working well, well, it depends how one looks at it
Well, take the history, religion, and science of Detroit. Is that as well to regard it as black history? Thus the stubborn realism of Detroit to retain the car industry there is explained. Just because nothing practical and good ('the wastefully rich and gullible way' in regards to is-ness and ought-ness) for the environment and economy has been done there in the start of the last recession.
I wouldn't imagine that the history of Detroit could be characterized as only black history. One could write about blacks in Detroit, probably about a Chinese community there, the white, etc. Depends upon what one wants to observe, what method one uses, the perspective (marxist, capitalist, liberal, Fordism, etc), bias, axe to grind, etc.
There are probably several reasons for Detroit wishing to retain the auto industry; taxes, jobs, pride, etc. It once was the auto capitol of the world, so I would image there is some semblance of that in that city's "spirit".
What "is" can be observed, not completely, as that is what I think about theory never being actual reality; above, as what "is" transcends the observer (Kant), but theory gets access by means of the reason in both (Hegel). What "ought" is is not in place and not as well observed as it is in the realm of idea (moral, ethical, economic, etc)-this is where I would think hot systems come in handy. I would image most of the citizens in Detroit feels more should be done to re-vitalize their city, or have some view as to how Detroit ought to "look"- I am sure all the politicians are playing to this. Still, how does one know which "ought" is the correct one? What criteria justifies a particular "ought" over several possibilities, as things can always be different? I believe in the post modern that the days when there was a singular "ought" are over.
Allen A says....It is irrelevant, theoretically, for this theory, where "desperation" is, whether in the third world or in some US city. Desperation would be a communication; therefore socially, or of the individual psychic system-thought. The content of the communications could be examined by further communications, say the media. How these communications are received by observers (pity, anger, sense of right and wrong, etc) can be further observed in the same theoretical structures.
I am sure every hot system is thought to be a good idea at the time; otherwise it probably doesn't get too far. A failure merely reveals that stuff may have been overlooked when implementation was attempted; that is why it is hot (lacking details), some last for a bit and then burn out, some have staying power.
Allen says
If one says the "ethical nature is a mutual co-existence between man and his environment" one needs to locate this "nature" because it sounds as if it floats between the two-man and environment; as an independent "thing". If using "man" as lumping all individuals together in a mass, taking out subjectivity; then dasein is lost and ethics can only be abstract.
Blue says
I think I see our difference in thought . To begin, lets consider the popular suggestion in which the earth is seen as a living unit within itself. As we
look closely we see climate, geographical, platonic and finally biotic components all working together satisfying individual and collective participation in mutual conformity to existence earth. The shifts , changes
adaptations would be independent or self serving however within the available extremes dictated through the larger initiative, existence earth.
A bumble bee goes about pollinating. The behavior would not float between bee and flower.....it would constitute part of the bee's existence.
The bee would be "part of his environment , and vise versa" A different species of bee would behave only similar, although the bee would continue to maintainer the pollinating principal . Here we find..pollination within bee species which promotes subjectivity...dasien or pollination.... is not lost as well we have mutual co-existence.
Therefore, the "nature in man vrs ethics, is suggested to be found in the
detached but extended composition of both individual & collective man.
We are ....part of our environment, part of family, social , universal...biotic
climate .geo..earth.
Man...in-complete within himself.
Ethical nature, dasien...to unique (experience, characteristic...Bumble Bee, Brown Bee) in compliance to shared environment allowing for mutual ..."survival" Mutual survival, upheld in "shared existence"
This would address the later comment just below regarding guilt as well.
Varied guilt obviously demands dasien. Man , part of his environment.
AllenA says:
If it is in him to be this way; then it would be something one is born with, but then ethics would tend to be universal as well as guilt; which I really can't buy (subjectively some individuals experience guilt for some action or thought that others do not).
I am not convinced man will play out his ethical nature, at least in a positive sense, history sort of confirms this. That is why there is guilt. Individually, a man may attempt it, but not in full success; one always violates his or the social ethic.
Blue says: I believe man "is" playing out his ethical nature. If you trace 300 yr increment..it is seen. We are enormously slow....representing our
individual slowness to improvement. Does society enjoy...public hangings after church on Sunday..? We are simply slow relative to expectation in critical overview. Ethical nature constitutes..."attempt" The attempt is individual effort in unconscious attribute to his enviorment...yes, the social ethic. The quality of the social ethic lends direct proportionate quality to mans or a man ..enviorment which he exists in. It is mutual, in mutual survival.
Allen A says :
Dependent on two things-inner man coupled with his environment.
1. what is inner man?
2.what is meant by coupled?
If I understand this, then ethical behavior, can not be a structure structured up by the subjective individual that may be in conflict with the social. A man is more than a social being (for the other), he is also ego, so he is also a being for himself. The tendency is to see him only for the other, and then he is something to be used.
To lump all individuals together overlooks the different stages of development within each one.
As to democracy working well, well, it depends how one looks at it[/quote]
Blue says
If in conflict with the social, the ethical behavior can be structured up
individually and we see it all the time...( A good person) The structured up
in ethical acuteness is a perceived positive contribution, to the social as well self. The ego is then fulfilled in a selfless -self initiative providing for...self worth.
I will discuss the last part first. I like where you are going. The social depends on communications, according to one theory I am using (Luhmann). However, it seems to me the social (anthropomorphic here), does not care about the ethical, moral, honesty, correctness, etc, of these communications as long as they are taking place. Of course, ethical communications can be introduced into the system to provide for ethics (probably through the subsystems of law, politics, religion). So one can be anti-political, but one is still communicating politically. The social will develop an ethics, abstractly I imagine, as the social system is abstract:communications; except as one views communications as existing as its form (communications here is not just talk, but all forms of activity that communicates, and in the codes of the system that these take place, so economics has a different code than politics, and religion's is different than science, etc, one needs to know the codes of the systems to observe this, however, a general person operates in these systems and may not know the codes reflectedly, but surely knows them from habit. A violation of code is usually expressed in a communication as well; for example a dirty joke told at church is frowned upon.
This being the case, if I am right, then the ethics set up by a social system may not be universal. Hitler's Germany, the economics of the West vs the USSR, commie China vs the modern China, etc, etc. This can even be further reduced to ethical structures within lesser social systems than states; such as an African/American ethics, American Indian ethics (with distinctions among tribes), an Irish, feminist, gay, and on and on. These "local" systems with their ethics may be at odds with the wider system such as state, broader ethnic, etc.
The individual who structures up his own system of ethics will in all likely hood may be at odds with the state, his ethnic, his sexual orientation, gender, etc. The reason is is the tendency of these social systems to absorb the individual. The larger social "thinks" that its ethics should be adopted by its members (philosophically, the whole abstracts the person; sociologically, all groups have entrance and exit requirements). So I don't think that an individua
So I don't think that an individual's contribution will necessarily be perceived as a positive contribution. Its been know for a long time that ego (or the individual) is always a somewhat variable for the social and a potential problem. That is why we have conformism. However, ideally, I would think that it would be in a system's interest to get individuals beyond the social, because in the environment, it would seem to me that socially transcendent individuals would contribute to the growth of the social-of course this could be both positive and negative.
The individual can not get beyond the social for some time and perhaps only few are capable. One needs the social to grow, learn and such, but contrary to a sociology professor I had, who as a marxist, of course, would feel that one can nor transcend the social, I disagree.
The individual exists, actually. He is in space and time. Ethics is there in space and time, but in a confused way as nature does not write it down and hand it to mind. Mind must determine it for itself, and to start with it needs the social to even have an idea of ethics. Mind, with reason, must penetrate the reason in all things to determine ethics. This is revealed to one by the space between ego and alter-existence gives to each existing person his own space-the start of the ethical needs to begin there. To abstract the individual into a system dissolves, abstractly, that space- I will continue later.
I will discuss the last part first. I like where you are going. The social depends on communications, according to one theory I am using (Luhmann). However, it seems to me the social (anthropomorphic here), does not care about the ethical, moral, honesty, correctness, etc, of these communications as long as they are taking place. Of course, ethical communications can be introduced into the system to provide for ethics (probably through the subsystems of law, politics, religion). So one can be anti-political, but one is still communicating politically. The social will develop an ethics, abstractly I imagine, as the social system is abstract:communications; except as one views communications as existing as its form (communications here is not just talk, but all forms of activity that communicates, and in the codes of the system that these take place, so economics has a different code than politics, and religion's is different than science, etc, one needs to know the codes of the systems to observe this, however, a general person operates in these systems and may not know the codes reflectedly, but surely knows them from habit. A violation of code is usually expressed in a communication as well; for example a dirty joke told at church is frowned upon.
This being the case, if I am right, then the ethics set up by a social system may not be universal. Hitler's Germany, the economics of the West vs the USSR, commie China vs the modern China, etc, etc. This can even be further reduced to ethical structures within lesser social systems than states; such as an African/American ethics, American Indian ethics (with distinctions among tribes), an Irish, feminist, gay, and on and on. These "local" systems with their ethics may be at odds with the wider system such as state, broader ethnic, etc.
The individual who structures up his own system of ethics will in all likely hood may be at odds with the state, his ethnic, his sexual orientation, gender, etc. The reason is is the tendency of these social systems to absorb the individual. The larger social "thinks" that its ethics should be adopted by its members (philosophically, the whole abstracts the person; sociologically, all groups have entrance and exit requirements). So I don't think that an individua
In order to highlight the supreme in potential to ethical nature in man, the individual ethic requires consideration ...need.
Only need can manifest, individual ethical soundness to desired measure.
To produce or stimulate individual ethical awareness , there must be a general absence of a reasonable ethical standard. The media-social is an extension of a general average providing for ethical weakness. Media could not survive otherwise. And its for a reason....as a purpose is served which augments general ethics individually via above need..Followed by social ethic...
It is a component which is dynamic. A general social ethic, allows for individualism, self worth by....demarcation. (I'm better, my contribution).
Self opinion is key. The system played out is logical. General Social Ethic vrs The individual. Not ruling out the imp role of Deity, I think its another
category in self understanding.
Consider the opposing scenario Allen...individual ethic would have nothing
tangible to excite the necessary perseverance needed in personal set goal.( in many ways for some)
Also....in group setting the social will in a constructive initiative adapt a ...similar...general ethic...the entire party may have identical moral principal, however its never known in start-up....Why...? Because we view our individual standard as unique, It is part of our individualistic need expressing interpetation of experience managed by personal charactoristic...(talent-specialnes...need).
Also, extremes cause for this reason...arguements.
In a way the "ethical referee" in social is open to how....the fight progress's. The social follows the average.....consistant in healthy climate to be progressive.
Its like a wide screen reverse-pyhscology...forcing people to constantly....get off the fence.
I think Hitler ect are a different issue. I don't believe in opinion its fair to apply an ethical formula broadly across all .
I Will look forward to reading the next later tonight...I think we think a little differently but maybe not ! The above are thoughts which I prob need to fine tune and as you know...the next day we always wonder if a sentence or two might have been changed around a little to be a lttle more on target
edit...I don't really want to introduce anything and enjoy following the lead with commentary
So I don't think that an individual's contribution will necessarily be perceived as a positive contribution. Its been know for a long time that ego (or the individual) is always a somewhat variable for the social and a potential problem. That is why we have conformism. However, ideally, I would think that it would be in a system's interest to get individuals beyond the social, because in the environment, it would seem to me that socially transcendent individuals would contribute to the growth of the social-of course this could be both positive and negative.
The individual can not get beyond the social for some time and perhaps only few are capable. One needs the social to grow, learn and such, but contrary to a sociology professor I had, who as a marxist, of course, would feel that one can nor transcend the social, I disagree.
The individual exists, actually. He is in space and time. Ethics is there in space and time, but in a confused way as nature does not write it down and hand it to mind. Mind must determine it for itself, and to start with it needs the social to even have an idea of ethics. Mind, with reason, must penetrate the reason in all things to determine ethics. This is revealed to one by the space between ego and alter-existence gives to each existing person his own space-the start of the ethical needs to begin there. To abstract the individual into a system dissolves, abstractly, that space- I will continue later.
Regarding first paragraph, the individual contribution is perceived by "self" to be positive in my previous entry.
I agree completely with the view in a systems interest to get individuals beyond the social. A keen approach would circulate, film theater esp advertising. These connections unite the social and steer ethical attitude.
We will know in opinion when change is about when we see a climb out from the materialistic suggestion to fulfillment. I can't see a political platform being at least in our world to be anything but a propaganda effort to attention. Do as I say, well ok.
A mild dis-agreement however re final paragraph where it is suggested that Ethics is here in a confused way as nature does not write it down and so on......
Well....maybe nature does write it down. It really does feel better to eat a nutritious meal I think....and along with many other stemming aspects of ethics, it does feel good to give....basically.
Overall, there is a chemical co-operation to survival within man which is
quite impressed in positive wholesome ethical.... human behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
