• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 28th, 2023

help-circle
  • Well I get your point and I do agree with your logic. Your correct about capitalism and our system centered around exploitation for profit.

    The reason I generalize is because, although capitalism makes it its center, personal gain and profit still exist nonetheless.

    Exploitation isn’t as new as capitalism, peasants under their king for instance was a major part of our history.

    To me the more power an individual can get, the more he can serve himself, profit and exploit others. I believe this is the rule rather than the exception.

    A lesser power would more easily lead to good actions because other incentives would compete with the smaller profit from your power. Hence why non profit organization are more free from corruption. As it’s true for mayor compared to president for instance.

    (This is why democracy is such an appealing concept, it divide power in such a way that no one as enough for corruption to exist.)

    P.S. I’m ok with long reply, I hope you’re good with that too…



  • When people are not brain dead by media, both in the US and EU we know all of our problems comes from our own government and fat CEOs.

    Foreigners are just one of the many scapegoats they put the blame on.

    What it reminds me of is Greeks and then Romans calling them barbarian, from barbar meaning foreigners. This isn’t new…

    The problem always was power and the unfit nature of human beings to possess it.



  • It’s a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.

    I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies…

    In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don’t think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.

    (I’d say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)

    And I don’t think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.

    Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that’s subjective, depending on your values and culture.


  • Funkytom467@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml*Why Socialism?* is a good read
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.

    Although I do wonder why it would matter.

    I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.

    Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.

    It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.

    I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.




  • Funkytom467@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlRemade for clarity
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.

    However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.

    Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.

    Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.

    Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.

    And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.

    Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.


  • But should it be work?

    Should we really have a society where selling your body is an opportunity to make money.

    For instance, it imply that some poor women are gonna take it regardless the consequence, just because it’s the best alternative to pay the bills.

    I can barely tolerate the physical straining we put on some workers. Sex work’s consequences are unacceptable to me in that same sens, sometimes worse.

    So sure, no matter your opinion we should respect them, and not incriminate them!

    And of course not all sex work is the same… to be acceptable it just requires better conditions. It can’t be something you choose out of need.