Is Specialization in Philosophy Good?

[Duality]

@Xunzian

Then enlighten me.

It’s not difficult. You are confusing a capitalist, drive-based system with a centralized, socialist state. Even though income disparity is more prominent, the overall cultural and technological environment is so superior that even the lower classes possess better standards of life due to the flourishing socioeconomic state a freer market provides. This is why the world’s most prominent intellectuals and entrepreneurs don’t go to Scandinavia, they come to America. Essentially, simply being here could be considered upward social mobility in itself.

@Xunzian

You argument thus-far as been that America is the land of opportunity insofar as social mobility is concerned but when faced with the fact that America has less social mobility than other first world countries, you countered that this situation exists because Americans are substantially lazier than people in these other countries.

Coupled with the fact it’s simply more difficult, as Americans aren’t spoon-fed the entire way.

@Xunzian

So America is the land of opportunity but most people can’t realize that opportunity.

Not can’t, wont

@Xunzian

This is despite the fact that lazy Americans are also the hardest working people out of the countries that we are talking about.

Not all Americans are lazy as I’ve stated. Again, more generalized rape of my statements.

@Xunzian

On the other hand, you’ve dismissed areas where actual social mobility is realized as having a socialist concept of social mobility (which, on the face of it, seems quite strange).

Not really, the immigration rates skew the statistics. If you stifled all immigration, within a few generations you would see your social mobility reduced to nearly nothing.

@statiktech

In other words, if an economy is a sum of the business activity ocurring between the members of a respective society, isn’t the “economy” simply what the people make of it - regardless of the name they give it?

Yes

@statiktech

An economy, and in turn the relative society, based solely on power and efficiancy would seem to be one of robotic automation - human beings would not even be necessary or present in a perfect economic system.

Right, but that would be implausible at this point in time.

@statiktech

Therefore neither would human values, which keep humanity afloat.

Robots don’t need human values. They simply perform the tasks they are designed for in a predictable fashion.

@statiktech

To me, I always considered the concepts of “society”, “economy”, “efficiancy”, “prodcutivity”, etc. (you get the idea) to be human answers to the recognition of our own short-comings (like greed, inefficiancy, and corruption). I think the only truely efficient, effective, fair, self-regulatory, incorruptable economic system is one entirely free of human influence.

Right

@statiktech

I might argue that some of the greatest economic “success” is a result of “human failure” - if by that you mean the failure of humanity to consider itself for what it is, and, instead, focusing only on the material/economic world.

Not necessarily. A human being driven by greed and lust for profit will always be inferior in efficiency and productivity in comparison to one who comprehends the true meaning of existence. The former will forever be slave to his desires and divided in himself, whereas the latter will be completely free from such bonds. However, a greed-based individual will still be superior to an apathetic one.

@statiktech

If by “human failure” you are literally just referring to human errors - of both thought and action - I would be interested to hear any theory based on a system that can truely “weed-out” humanity from human business.

There currently is none, yet anarcho-capitalism decidedly comes pretty close. It’s sole fatal flaw seems to be the possession of land-based private property.

[Xunzian]

You still aren’t going a very good job of making sense.

@Duality

It’s not difficult. You are confusing a capitalist, drive-based system with a centralized, socialist state.

I’m not confusing anything, you are projecting. That is fine.

Even though income disparity is more prominent, the overall cultural and technological environment is so superior that even the lower classes possess better standards of life due to the flourishing socioeconomic state a freer market provides. This is why the world’s most prominent intellectuals and entrepreneurs don’t go to Scandinavia, they come to America. Essentially, simply being here could be considered upward social mobility in itself.

Coupled with the fact it’s simply more difficult, as Americans aren’t spoon-fed the entire way.

Not can’t, wont

Not all Americans are lazy as I’ve stated. Again, more generalized rape of my statements.

Look at all that, the contradiction is clear. I am not the confused one here. Raping what you said, phfff, I’ve quoted you are you are trying to suggest that the manner in which I am arguing is flawed rather than what I’ve actually said is flawed. Drivel. And you know it. For shame.

Not really, the immigration rates skew the statistics. If you stifled all immigration, within a few generations you would see your social mobility reduced to nearly nothing.

So then why did you bring up immigration? First, you said that immigration supported what you are saying. Now you are suggesting that what you are saying is best understood in the absence of immigration.

I’m the one ignoring external factors? Really?

Really?

Come on. Hit me with something real. Don’t just deconstruct yourself.

[Juggernaut]

@statiktech

This is a result of modern capitalism and the business wielding power over helpless employees due to government interference in markets. In a free market, this would self-regulate and weed out human failure and organizations like this. For example, all the companies now destroyed by their own greed and corruption, instead of being afforded government bailouts and subsidies, would be allowed to crumble and superior, more efficient ones would rise. Granted, this is a lot worse in socialized nations, being rank with corruption and human inefficincy, causing their inferior economies, but capitalism is in no way ideal and, in all respects, a failed economic system.

Just to be clear, I agree with most of your response above, but I can’t see how economic failure = human failure. Are there perfect, economy-calculating robots that set the standard for economic success? An economy would seem to be made up of the transactions of goods & services within a given society, and, therefore, the people who buy & sell the goods & services. In other words, if an economy is a sum of the business activity ocurring between the members of a respective society, isn’t the “economy” simply what the people make of it - regardless of the name they give it? An economy, and in turn the relative society, based solely on power and efficiancy would seem to be one of robotic automation - human beings would not even be necessary or present in a perfect economic system. Therefore neither would human values, which keep humanity afloat. To me, I always considered the concepts of “society”, “economy”, “efficiancy”, “prodcutivity”, etc. (you get the idea) to be human answers to the recognition of our own short-comings (like greed, inefficiancy, and corruption). I think the only truely efficient, effective, fair, self-regulatory, incorruptable economic system is one entirely free of human influence.

I might argue that some of the greatest economic “success” is a result of “human failure” - if by that you mean the failure of humanity to consider itself for what it is, and, instead, focusing only on the material/economic world. If by “human failure” you are literally just referring to human errors - of both thought and action - I would be interested to hear any theory based on a system that can truely “weed-out” humanity from human business. Imperfection is one of the many inherent traits in humanity, no?

I would argue that no economic system is ideal being that they all suffer the same short-comings of the individuals who make up the society. That is to say, I think all economic systems, given enough time and human influence, end up as “failed economic systems”.

Economies are only forms… When forms fail people blame the humans… Well sure, sometimes human beings working for their own perceived benefit do turn the horn of plenty into their own pockets; but with them, as we must be, it is actually easier to reform the forms, and forgive the humans… Human nature is impossible to change… We have always progresssed through a change of forms…This time is no different from any other…The form no longer serves the relationship… Change the forms, and people will be cahnged in the process…Try to change people to fit or fix a failed form, and you will be up to your neck in resentment…

[Duality]

@Xunzian

I’m not confusing anything, you are projecting.

aka using common sense

@Xunzian

Raping what you said, phfff, I’ve quoted you are you are trying to suggest that the manner in which I am arguing is flawed rather than what I’ve actually said is flawed. Drivel. And you know it. For shame.

It is flawed because you don’t analyze using logic, you expect every situation to be one big cookie cutter that requires the same action as all others. Using your logic, we might as well sentence people to life in prison both for stealing a twinkie and killing their families. Or pissing in the park and burning people’s houses down. Perhaps you’d do better at studying something like mathematics, with it’s repetitive nuances and lack of need for any analytical thought.

@Xunzian

So then why did you bring up immigration? First, you said that immigration supported what you are saying. Now you are suggesting that what you are saying is best understood in the absence of immigration.

Yes, upward mobility in a socialized state is best understood by analyzing immigration rates. Your quick-witted interpretation of my replies is leaving me baffled and amazed.

@Xunzian

Come on. Hit me with something real. Don’t just deconstruct yourself.

Hit you with something real? Like a sledgehammer? See, I can bake cookies too.

[Xunzian]

You didn’t actually justify any of those statements, though there were a few nice strawmen thrown in there.

I’d say that the best way to measure social mobility is to compare the socioeconomic class of children born in the country to that of their parents when they were living in the country. You know, like how the NYTimes article did it? I’d say that is a lot more telling than immigration rates, which has more to do with the living conditions in other countries.

[Duality]

@Xunzian

I’d say that the best way to measure social mobility is to compare the socioeconomic class of children born in the country to that of their parents when they were living in the country. You know, like how the NYTimes article did it? I’d say that is a lot more telling than immigration rates, which has more to do with the living conditions in other countries.

Oh boy, I was saying if you statistically removed say first and second generation immigrants, the upward mobility in socialized countries would be pitiful.