|
I personally do not think most rich people are 'happy'. I think they have good PR departments that glamorize their lifestyles, but as people they are miserable fucks who only ever think about protecting and expanding their wealth. Look at how they've spent the last century weeping and making GBS threads their pants over paying taxes, which amount to tiny fractions of their wealth. So much misery and impoverishment caused because they cannot stand to see number go down. Doesn't sound like a fulfilling existence to me!
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Even a person earning a million a year isn't actually a member of the ruling class by the way. People who get "rich" because they play a sport or can sing and dance or who reach a top of their profession strictly speaking would be considered "petit bourgeois" from a strict marxist perspective. (the real wealth is concentrated in a very small number of giant corporations and banks) I think every society needs a layer of upwardly mobile people to be given as an example that "everyone can make it if they work hard". The bureaucracy in the USSR deliberately cultivated a layer of "shock workers" who beat the work quotas and recieved special privilages. It's the same in any society. edit: corrolary: In societies that lack the ballast of a middle layer, the need for skillful ethnic/religious divide and rule and authoritarian goernment becomes more acute. Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0135 posted:I personally do not think most rich people are 'happy'. I think they have good PR departments that glamorize their lifestyles, but as people they are miserable fucks who only ever think about protecting and expanding their wealth. Look at how they've spent the last century weeping and making GBS threads their pants over paying taxes, which amount to tiny fractions of their wealth. So much misery and impoverishment caused because they cannot stand to see number go down. Doesn't sound like a fulfilling existence to me!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:All people, however, are fully human - from the richest to the poorest, from the most powerful to the least - and thus access the full range of human experience: we all feel pain; we all feel joy; we all love and have love unrequited; we all experience friendships and suffer false friends; we are all lonely; we all have hopes and dreams, many of which cannot be made good and some of which can; we all envy and covet; we all wonder why we exist; we all experience the existential dread of our own mortality. All of these things belong to us all. Material conditions can affect some of them and make others easier or harder to bear but it cannot resolve all of them and all of them play in to whether we are "happy" or not. I don't think we are. There are a great deal of similarities between all of us, but I probably have more in common with the average person on the street in Minsk than I do with my prime minister. They feel pain and discomfort, but ultimately choose not to rectify those feelings for themselves or others with the power that they have. Even the stuff that is done out of good will requires that they direct it and can cause great problems for others, c.f. Bill Gates' foundation and problems of it needing to turn a profit on charity. We have all of those things, but those of us who have them cannot have them done, if I dream of going on holiday it may be possible only if nothing in my life goes wrong. Billionaires and people like them never have to experience that worry or stress they can just leave. Also as an answer 1) Prove it. Everything has to be material in order to be viewed so where else does the experience of "being human" come from? This only really works if we believe in a soul. 2) Sure, but with more power should come more necessity to do good. And since power and money are so intertwined in our current system it behooves those in charge to behave better. Nessus posted:I would say that what you are saying is wrong, yeah, particularly in this maximalist stage, and if I'm going to go a step further I would say that it almost amounts to deifying the rich, just in a negative direction. I don't think that's justified even if they may be political/class enemies in need of secular opposition for the benefit of the non-rich, because it will, if nothing else, lead you to assume they have godlike powers which will demoralize you and make you produce bad strategic calls. I would disagree. I just think that it's very within scope of the wealthy to make themselves happy in a personal sense as it were. They aren't all encompassing and I'm not going to be stupid enough to think them omniscient, but they are going to be happier than people who do not have material comfort. Also sure, but death comes a lot faster and a great deal more pain to the poor and wretched. From the point of view of eternity it doesn't matter. But from the point of view of the person it absolutely does. Nessus posted:They are not gods or vampires; they are individuals who primarily by luck and occasionally luck alloyed with shrewd business decisions have become extremely wealthy and powerful, much as kings of old were born or occasionally adopted. They will also age, become ill, and die. But we were judging based on the "fruits of the ideology" idea. The fruits for some are good even if they inflict pain on others. That is the arguement that I wanted to kind of put forward, but this is really interesting too tbh. They are not immortal, but certainly they have power and wield it like dicks. I don't see how anything I've said made them into "deities" and I am baffled by the comparison tbh. That and, sure they will, but they will inflict pain and suffering on the world and on themselves and they will change nothing about themselves first. Yes the rich eventually die. They will have done more ill in the world than most beforehand. They can stop that by giving away the money, but will not. They could be happier too, but will not. Prurient Squid posted:Also, when you're super rich you have the resources to persue every vendetta, nurse every wound and insulate yourself from the consequences. What sort of conciousness is going to emerge from these material circumstances? A bad one for anyone else, but a good one for you. Every vendetta and grudge is answered and any justice cannot touch you. All you learn is the brute reality of power and it's use. Bar Ran Dun posted:Wealth is one thing of many things that separate us from ourselves and others. But it is not the only thing that can do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
You’re postulating super powerful beings who do not experience human emotions but exist among humans and torment them. This suggests some kind of demon or alien. In other words, small gods, but evil ones. This is additionally made somewhat grotesque because many of the super rich have clear family links, or affiliation links, to non-wealthy people. Is the evil from money inherited? Does it come from earlier generations? You also seem to appeal to a sort of natural justice but where does it come from? Is it created by humans? What if it’s the evil, fake humans who came up with the idea? E: basically I think no one disagrees that money solves the problems that come from not having money. There are other sources of suffering, though. You seem to be saying those problems, those sources of suffering, either don’t exist or don’t matter, whichever works at the moment. You can loathe the rich while not saying they are imaginary devils. Many do. Nessus fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:E: basically I think no one disagrees that money solves the problems that come from not having money. There are other sources of suffering, though. You seem to be saying those problems, those sources of suffering, either don’t exist or don’t matter, whichever works at the moment. You can loathe the rich while not saying they are imaginary devils. Many do. Yes, I think this is the crux of it and where much of the disagreement comes from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
I, wait what? Am I saying that? What I am attempting to say is "Rich people can effect the world more than poor people" and that includes making themselves happy? When have I postulated any of the other? They torment people through inaction and the fruits they reap are good ones for them and those close to them? I'm not implying familial guilt and, tbh, thats kind of odd that that is what you've drawn from what I've said. Nessus posted:There are other sources of suffering, though. You seem to be saying those problems, those sources of suffering, either don’t exist or don’t matter, whichever works at the moment. You can loathe the rich while not saying they are imaginary devils. Many do. Death, illness etc etc. Yes you keep going on and on about them because they are the only ones that matter to everyone. But I don't think that makes the rich unhappy. I don't think it makes them sad. Ultimately, I don't think the uber wealthy are actually "secretly sad" about stuff. All your evidence is stuff like "they make sad tweets" and so on. I don't think that implies anything other than a reasonable human being whose feelings fluctuate but will usually end up happier than those with nowt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Wealth tends to be inherited. Your own example brings up “people close to them”. Generally that would include family. I’m extending from what you’re saying but it legit was unclear even now if you’re saying the rich don’t suffer (due to being rich) or that the ways in which they experience suffering don’t matter because it’s counterbalanced by their obvious benefit from their wealth. It seems to be the former and I would just say “That is a wrong view” from where I sit, without in the slightest excusing the many crimes and sins of the wealthy. E: like my religion straight up says otherwise. My personal observations back it up. I’m not a fan of these people but they’re also suffering beings. Nessus fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
The rich are better able to avoid pain and seek pleasure, but if you're saying that pleasure is the same as happiness then you should expect to be receptive to learning about the many reasons why many religions disagree with you about that. Wealth doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor does it arise spontaneously. The power of the powerful came to them from somewhere in the world and is contingent upon the position they occupy in the world. Those connections are limits to what they can do, and because the money depends upon them, money can't exceed those limits. Having enough money to do whatever you want often means that there are certain things that you can't want, though this varies from person to person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I, wait what? Am I saying that? Yes, it certainly sounded like that. Josef bugman posted:What I am attempting to say is "Rich people can effect the world more than poor people" and that includes making themselves happy? When have I postulated any of the other? They torment people through inaction and the fruits they reap are good ones for them and those close to them? I'm not implying familial guilt and, tbh, thats kind of odd that that is what you've drawn from what I've said. They can ameliorate the things for themselves that can be addressed by wealth but much of personal human suffering cannot be addressed in this way. Josef bugman posted:qDeath, illness etc etc. Yes you keep going on and on about them because they are the only ones that matter to everyone. But I don't think that makes the rich unhappy. I don't think it makes them sad. Ultimately, I don't think the uber wealthy are actually "secretly sad" about stuff. All your evidence is stuff like "they make sad tweets" and so on. I don't think that implies anything other than a reasonable human being whose feelings fluctuate but will usually end up happier than those with nowt. I do not posit that the wealthy and powerful are "secretly sad" (although some have posited this). I posit that they are able to ameliorate some of life's problems but not all and have a fair few other ones that come along with wealth. As such I would posit that on the whole most of the wealthy and powerful are, on the level of their own personal experience of life, probably about as happy/sad and contented/discontented as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Yes, it certainly sounded like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
One thing Tillich has convinced me of. That turbulent and pivotal moments in history coincide with an enormous amount of guilt and blame. These can take the form of a zeal for pilgrimages, penance, the sale of indulgences, witchhunts and so on. Clearly our own time shows that these can be political and secular as well as religious. edit: A modern example of the attempt to overcome moral non-being might be buying groceries in a reusable bag, introspection about the way we treat others, donating to charity. More problematically, flame wars online over perceived transgressions. Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:E: like my religion straight up says otherwise. My personal observations back it up. I’m not a fan of these people but they’re also suffering beings. Yes, but it's a choice isn't it? You have people who give away the money or people who are simply "close by". If you do not wish to be wealthy the option is always there not to be. Someone cannot stop being poor, or mistreated by society and just decide not to be without denying a huge part of themself, whilst wealth can be simply left. It is not guilt, merely material. They suffer, yes, but there suffering is less than other people who do not possess material abundance. As in it's factually less physical and mental suffering, wealthier people live longer lives due to this! Bongo Bill posted:The rich are better able to avoid pain and seek pleasure, but if you're saying that pleasure is the same as happiness then you should expect to be receptive to learning about the many reasons why many religions disagree with you about that. I'm saying that I'm not sure how to describe happiness in any way that does not involve pleasure. They are not as limited as most people. If you possesses power then you can use it. The position they occupy is connected to a lot of other things then they have the resources to sever those links and divest themselves of power. A_Bluenoser posted:Yes, it certainly sounded like that. Sorry about that. What can't be addressed? What parts of human suffering, other than illness, old age and death, cannot be stopped with money? Even those things can be approached and semi dealt with a little bit more with it. There is a reason that Henry Kissinger may well outlive all of us here. If we are only measuring based on personal experience then sure. But that is not the only way to view it, and they are still going to be overall happier. Nessus posted:Yeah this is where I’m at. It’s completely fair to not give a poo poo about the troubles of the wealthy, obviously. Saying they have no troubles valorizes them. How? I'm saying that any troubles they have, bar entropy, can be solved and even the fear of entropy can be approached with enough resources. It is not valorising in the first iota.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:How? I'm saying that any troubles they have, bar entropy, can be solved and even the fear of entropy can be approached with enough resources. It is not valorising in the first iota. You also seem to be saying it’s bad but you’ve presented a road to liberation and salvation: become rich!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
A rich person who fears entropy has the means to alleviate that fear by, for instance, taking an extraordinary amount of drugs so that they don't think about scary entropy, or by ensconcing themselves in a bubble in which entropy is always said to be reversible. However, there are those who do not respond to their fear of entropy in these ways, or in any other (assumedly for the sake of the argument) effective way. What is your explanation for why they do not do this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
This being human is a guest house. Every morning a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness, some momentary awareness comes as an unexpected visitor. Welcome and entertain them all! Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows, who violently sweep your house empty of its furniture, still, treat each guest honorably. He may be clearing you out for some new delight. The dark thought, the shame, the malice, meet them at the door laughing, and invite them in. Be grateful for whoever comes, because each has been sent as a guide from beyond.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How is it not? You’re saying being rich is the best possible thing to be— it can solve all other problems. All you have to do is become rich. It profoundly centers and exalts the rich. You’re even saying that the unarguable medical benefits of being wealthy are tantamount to escaping Samsara! It would be best, if you wish to see the material benefit in this life or if you don't care about the wider world. If you want what is best for yourself alone. It does not exalt them, merely shows how material reality can be changed through the use of wealth and power. Like, in the story you posted you are saying that "you can tell the tree by it's fruits", if you wish personal salvation and the tree to kill everyone around it but leave you fine? Bongo Bill posted:A rich person who fears entropy has the means to alleviate that fear by, for instance, taking an extraordinary amount of drugs so that they don't think about scary entropy, or by ensconcing themselves in a bubble in which entropy is always said to be reversible. However, there are those who do not respond to their fear of entropy in these ways, or in any other (assumedly for the sake of the argument) effective way. What is your explanation for why they do not do this? I do not know. Can you provide an example? Say if someone simply accepts that death is a part of things, or a thing to look forward to. Also realised I missed a few posts, will respond in a tick! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It would be best, if you wish to see the material benefit in this life or if you don't care about the wider world. If you want what is best for yourself alone. It does not exalt them, merely shows how material reality can be changed through the use of wealth. Do you think there is an afterlife or other route of justice that would provide a reason not to try to become mega rich by literally any possible means, given the incredible, indescribable benefits of this view?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
DiscoWitch posted:This being human is a guest house. Yes. Feel everything. It's the only way. Jeff Foster says that it's like letting in little children through the door.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Okay, you know, pretty much anything that involves other people or your inner self. I'd argue that wealth makes many of those worse since wealth brings with it an illusion of control. And you become miserable if you try to control your life instead of living it. You do have control of quite a lot though. And also, horseshit. You cannot "live" life without controlling bits of it. Other people and our inner self are, if not controllable, at least influencable via material means. This can be made easier through wealth. Bar Ran Dun posted:Wealth is one thing of many things that separate us from ourselves and others. But it is not the only thing that can do so. We are all separate from ourselves. Never mind others, but that does not mean that it is the biggest one. BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:The second you give yourself to one half and let yourself be carried away by it you make it inevitable that you'll be crushed when the pendulum swings the other way. I don't believe this for one second. "These things are just part of it all", and they shouldn't be. They should be shifted to the good side instead of the other and the universe should be re-ordered in such a way to ensure the better option all of the time. Bar Ran Dun posted:I mean it’s great to have enough money. I make a buncha problems go away with my money. I like being comfortable and getting the things I want. But it also separates me from people and places I do not want to be separated from. Then make the choice yourself. Dr. Video Games 0135 posted:I personally do not think most rich people are 'happy'. I think they have good PR departments that glamorize their lifestyles, but as people they are miserable fucks who only ever think about protecting and expanding their wealth. Look at how they've spent the last century weeping and making GBS threads their pants over paying taxes, which amount to tiny fractions of their wealth. So much misery and impoverishment caused because they cannot stand to see number go down. Doesn't sound like a fulfilling existence to me! I disagree. Most rich people seem at the very least content with what they have continually going up. Nessus posted:From what you’ve said, if I become rich I won’t care about that poo poo any more. Any difficulties will be washed away once I cross a threshold of wealth. (But what is that threshold?) You probably wouldn't, is there anything to suggest that the very wealthy care for other people? Not really. There is no justice. The whole idea you have is "look to what it can provide" if you want the best for yourself is to be profoundly selfish and a dick. The best for all is to be kind. But that is not what we wanted to incentivize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:Yes. Feel everything. It's the only way. Its all you can do! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
DiscoWitch posted:Its all you can do! Or you don't let some of them in. Some of the lovely ones shouldn't be embraced and are mere cruelty. The idea that we should have no judgements about things is something I do have to disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Not really. There is no justice. The whole idea you have is "look to what it can provide" if you want the best for yourself is to be profoundly selfish and a dick. The best for all is to be kind. But that is not what we wanted to incentivize. I compare it to the four noble truths here, which diagnoses an underlying issue and presents a road out through the noble eightfold path. Everyone can follow that path to some extent. Generally speaking you get real practical results from it here and now, too. Like I’m guessing you’re combining philosophical thoughts with aesthetic thoughts and (justifiable) political opinions without differentiating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
In order to learn to face my fears I had to hit bottom. I had to experience what it's like to fear everything before I could see the need to feel my fear and not flinch before it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You are presenting very small potatoes compared to the path of liberation through wealth. Yes? They are small potatoes in comparison if the only thing you want is your own salvation. I'm sure they can, but not everyone will and, judging by the fruits of Buddhism, is that it is just as open to causing pain as other faiths. Sort of? I'm not very good at this tbh. Prurient Squid posted:In order to learn to face my fears I had to hit bottom. I had to experience what it's like to fear everything before I could see the need to feel my fear and not flinch before it. Hope that it worked out!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
It's not "its just a part of it all" that implies the things have innate and inherent nature. They are determined like all things by their environment and when a person bases their happiness upon one then they have set the baseline, formed an attachment to things being arranged in that particular manner, and will become miserable when the inevitability of impermanence causes it to be arranged in a different particular matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:It's not "its just a part of it all" that implies the things have innate and inherent nature. They are determined like all things by their environment and when a person bases their happiness upon one then they have set the baseline, formed an attachment to things being arranged in that particular manner, and will become miserable when the inevitability of impermanence causes it to be arranged in a different particular matter. Impermanence of the good is a problem that the universe poses. At least to me. Lack of attachment or acceptance of the world is something I don't believe is helpful. I can see why people disagree ofc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:We are all separate from ourselves. Never mind others, but that does not mean that it is the biggest one. As a narrative / critique among other constructed narrative / critiques class struggle is coherent. As a universalized story that attempts to explain everything in history class struggle is incoherent, because it is also a constructed narrative. I mean we know who came up with it, and because of his writings we know how he came up with it. Just because he declared it all of history though don’t make it that, I mean do you think this is a underlying essential truth of history? Josef bugman posted:Then make the choice yourself. It’s not the only critique I think about the world with. I mean my family lives in Florida. There are many other reasons not related to income to get the hell out of Florida and never come back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Unrequited love would be the classical and obvious one: obvious enough that whole epic poems have been written about it by people from all backgrounds. Things like shame and disgrace also come to mind immediately. Josef bugman posted:
Yes, I am talking about the personal experience of life of individual humans, nothing else makes sense in my view. Suffering, happiness, contentment, fulfillment, salvation, etc. are all descriptions of experiences that apply to individual human beings and are not abstract (i.e. there is no suffering if there is no individual that is actually experiencing suffering). Even God became man (something that I believe factually happened as laid out in the Nicene Creed) at least partly because this individualization is so important. Also as far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "aggregate happiness" or "aggregate suffering" where you somehow "sum up" the happiness or suffering of a class of people and get a real thing, it seems to me to be an incoherent concept. If I am suffering then I am suffering, even if other members of "my class" (whatever that may be) are not. They may or may not suffer in reaction to my suffering but that is also an individual reaction, not a reflection of some sort of general "suffering pool" belonging to the class that is being added to or drawn from. And there is no universal scale of these experiences, no "you will experience exactly this quanta of joy due to this thing": something that may be quite tolerable to one person may be intolerable suffering to another, what brings one person joy may evoke no reaction in another. This is not necessarily because one person is strong while the other is weak, not necessarily that one person has the "right thoughts" while the other is somehow disordered. All are individuals and any discussion like this that does not start with the individual is, in my view, wide of the mark. "Josef bugman" posted:
Also owe a comment on this before I drop off the internet for the weekend. As to point 1) I actually do believe in a soul but beyond that I would say that the experience of being human for each one of us is such a combination of various influences: genetics, upbringing, random experiences, etc. and then all mixed together in such a poorly understood way that it is essentially an emergent phenomenon. Its form for any person certainly cannot be fully predicted by analysis of the material inputs and will certainly not be fully determined by that person's current material conditions. For me this is effectively "not just material conditions" but, setting aside a soul, if you say it is just "material conditions but not fully understood" then I won't argue because it still works out to the same thing in my view: my current material conditions are only one small part of my experience of being human. As to point 2) yes, many people with wealth and power should use both better; this is both true and completely irrelevant to the point. Whatever they do they are still fully human with the full range of human experience and indeed it is this human experience that drives their bad behaviour. Fear, pride, cruelty, disinterest, self-obsession, envy, greed, arrogance, etc. are all fully human and arise from fully human thought processes. V. V. Putin is not invading Ukraine and inflicting pain, cruelty, and death because he is an alien lizard man: he is a human with fully human reasons (a burning (and utterly false) sense of injustice, envy of his predecessors, desire for a legacy, etc.) for what he is doing and to believe otherwise is simply incorrect. Apologies for my incoherent ramblings, I very seldom post or put my thoughts into words so what comes out when I try tends to be rather scattered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
A couple days ago my beloved pet died, of a cancer there's no effective treatment for. There was no way for me to avoid this pain using money - all I could do was continue to give him supportive care until it was his time. Once I dealt with his remains and got myself something to eat, admittedly using money to help myself feel better, I decided it was time to seek a little solace using religion - that's actually when I decided to go to that Episcopal service. It's not a conclusive solution to samsara, Christianity isn't built like that, but frankly it worked for me. People for untold millennia have used contemplation of that which transcends us in order to cope with that which we can't avoid. Ordinarily it is free, kind of a red flag when it isn't. I'm not trying to free you from the anger you experience at the injustices of life, but there seems to be tension with the much narrower point that the transcendental can bring relief to things that money is ill-suited for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Unrequited love would be the classical and obvious one: obvious enough that whole epic poems have been written about it by people from all backgrounds. Things like shame and disgrace also come to mind immediately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:A couple days ago my beloved pet died, of a cancer there's no effective treatment for. There was no way for me to avoid this pain using money - all I could do was continue to give him supportive care until it was his time. Once I dealt with his remains and got myself something to eat, admittedly using money to help myself feel better, I decided it was time to seek a little solace using religion - that's actually when I decided to go to that Episcopal service. It's not a conclusive solution to samsara, Christianity isn't built like that, but frankly it worked for me. People for untold millennia have used contemplation of that which transcends us in order to cope with that which we can't avoid. Ordinarily it is free, kind of a red flag when it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
I'm praying for the goon who lost their poor cat. On the subject of marxism, it's an absurdity it you crudely apply the abcs of marxism to history. This is why marxists learn to spell. Also, today I get to open a digimon booster pack. Hopefully I'll draw a Volcanomon! Quakers tommorow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
I will respond to all of these later, and I don't want people to think I am ignoring them. I am just at work atm and I think the amount of good words given requires me to use a keyboard and not a phone at this point. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:To that point, one of the most prominent American novels of the 20th century is about a man who builds incredible wealth and privilege for the sake of unrequited love, and it ends in tragedy. Don't you mean New Vegas' Dead Money DLC? I'm kidding, you're referring to The Great Gatsby, right? Crazy Joe Wilson fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:As a narrative / critique among other constructed narrative / critiques class struggle is coherent. As a universalized story that attempts to explain everything in history class struggle is incoherent, because it is also a constructed narrative. I mean we know who came up with it, and because of his writings we know how he came up with it. Just because he declared it all of history though don’t make it that, I mean do you think this is a underlying essential truth of history? I know I am hardly one to talk, but if you want to talk about myths and things of "origin" perhaps start a thread to discuss them? Every time you keep talking about how "Liberalism breaks myths of origin" it sounds a bit off. I know it isn't meant in that spirit, but it sounds very far right. Stories of origin may sound at least a touch better. That's fair, but moving them to you could be broached if you'd like, right? A_Bluenoser posted:Unrequited love would be the classical and obvious one: obvious enough that whole epic poems have been written about it by people from all backgrounds. Things like shame and disgrace also come to mind immediately. Do you think the uber-wealthy feel shame? I would point to several former presidents to disabuse you of that notion. Unrequited love may well be a thing for them, but such is inherent to many people. I am trying to say that the cushioning of the individual via material circumstances makes their suffering less long lasting and/or less impactful than those that suffer material deprivation alongside those already existing feelings. If everything is like that then you'd never get a view of the whole. If we cannot look at material circumstances and see differences that they cause, or look at systems and think of what they may make then you reduce everyone to the same playing field. Also, as regards the bolded bit: If a great deal of a group people suffer discrimination, hatred and disdain based on who they are and not their material action then they are already being sorted into classes. The aggregate happiness or unhappiness of the slave and the lord can be measured and seen by the fact that the slave dies hungry and abused and the king dies rich and feted by all. To reduce everything to the individual as the only means of assaying understanding of things is to try and take an understandable and kind view and draw an unkind conclusion. Genetics, upbringing and random experiences are material conditions. They are and have matter. They may interact in ways we cannot yet understand fully, but they are things we can look at and measure from. I think I should have said that we can measure only material things and circumstances, we cannot measure the ideal of a soul. Sorry about that, that's my error and I do apologise. I don't mean to have said that the rich cannot "feel" certain things. I think I may have been a bit emotional less night and not communicating properly. What I am meaning to try and say is that, on aggregate, the wealthy have the resources to deal with their feelings in a way that could be constructive. But they don't and won't because they are happier as they are than they would be as poorer people. Ohtori Akio posted:A couple days ago my beloved pet died, of a cancer there's no effective treatment for. There was no way for me to avoid this pain using money - all I could do was continue to give him supportive care until it was his time. Once I dealt with his remains and got myself something to eat, admittedly using money to help myself feel better, I decided it was time to seek a little solace using religion - that's actually when I decided to go to that Episcopal service. It's not a conclusive solution to samsara, Christianity isn't built like that, but frankly it worked for me. People for untold millennia have used contemplation of that which transcends us in order to cope with that which we can't avoid. Ordinarily it is free, kind of a red flag when it isn't. I'm sorry to hear that Ohtori. I am sure that they had a wonderful life with you. Keromaru5 posted:To that point, one of the most prominent American novels of the 20th century is about a man who builds incredible wealth and privilege for the sake of unrequited love, and it ends in tragedy. It's fictional though isn't it? You could argue that Citizen Kane is as accurate a read on the wealthy if you wanted to. Nessus posted:I'm sorry to hear about your little fellow, and I hope their next incarnation is blessed by the outpourings of loving kindness you provided. Echoing this. Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Don't you mean New Vegas' Dead Money DLC? I'm kidding, you're referring to The Great Gatsby, right? I'd be suprised if it wasn't that reference. Though I do still need to play dead money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Every time you keep talking about how "Liberalism breaks myths of origin" it sounds a bit off. I know it isn't meant in that spirit, but it sounds very far right. It’s from the Socialist Decision. He published it in 33 and was the first non-Jewish academic fired and then chased out of Germany for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
And “myth” here is a technical academic term he’s using from this guy Bultmann
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
lol I just learned Tillich lead seminars in Germany with Adorno. (30-31) Edit Tillich was his professor. Edit2: I guess what I’m saying is that Tillich was connected to rather a lot of important European thought. And his choice to publish in 33 influenced a lot of German academics many of who would be the European left’s important thinkers after the war to uh stand up to the Nazis and have to flee the country for it. But you have a “feeling” that it sounds vaguely right wing. Edit 3: I am angry and tired for reasons unrelated to this thread. I should be kinder and less antagonistic. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think the uber-wealthy feel shame? I would point to several former presidents to disabuse you of that notion. Unrequited love may well be a thing for them, but such is inherent to many people. I am trying to say that the cushioning of the individual via material circumstances makes their suffering less long lasting and/or less impactful than those that suffer material deprivation alongside those already existing feelings. Of course they do, as evidenced by the fact that many will go to extraordinary lengths - tell almost any lie, construct almost any justification you can imagine - to avoid feeling it (note that the very poor and every one in between does this as well). A great deal of behaviour (including that of a certain recent US and a current Russian President) can be explained by this. More broadly your assertion would imply that, for example, a very rich man has never argued with his wife, said something unkind, realized that he was in the wrong, felt ashamed, and apologized the next morning and I don't think that assertion is accurate. Josef bugman posted:If everything is like that then you'd never get a view of the whole. If we cannot look at material circumstances and see differences that they cause, or look at systems and think of what they may make then you reduce everyone to the same playing field. Also, as regards the bolded bit: If a great deal of a group people suffer discrimination, hatred and disdain based on who they are and not their material action then they are already being sorted into classes. The aggregate happiness or unhappiness of the slave and the lord can be measured and seen by the fact that the slave dies hungry and abused and the king dies rich and feted by all. To reduce everything to the individual as the only means of assaying understanding of things is to try and take an understandable and kind view and draw an unkind conclusion. Of course you can examine, analyze, and take action on things that affect large classes of people and I do not assert otherwise - if we could not do this then government and society would be impossible. The locus of suffering, however, remains with the individual because suffering (at least as I have always understood it) is an experience that humans have, not an external thing. If there is no-one to experience it, then there is no suffering because the experience is what suffering is. In this view I would not say anyone "inflicts suffering" on anyone else; rather, someone inflicts for example pain or injury on another person and that other person experiences suffering in response. The experience of suffering will also be different for each individual and different individuals will suffer in response to different things. There are common threads of course and things that pretty much everyone responds to with suffering but the actual reality of the suffering is individual. We certainly want to systemically improve things but we want to do so not because of some abstract concept of a "person who suffers" but because we want to make things better for real, individual people. This is part of why it is so important to actually engage with the people who are affected by such propose "improvements" - they may not suffer the way we think they do or want what we think they want. Fake edit: A banal example of what I mean when I say that different individuals will suffer in response to different things: I went sailing on my small 14' open boat a couple of weeks ago which is very late in the season here. It was cold; I got water in my boots while launching the boat and my socks were going "squelch" the entire time I was out; I got sunburned and windburned; I was bleeding from my hand after smashing it on a sharp bracket that I need to fix; and I had a wonderful time! I was with a friend who's company I very much enjoy and she enjoys sailing as much as I do, it was great! I was cold, wet, lightly injured, etc. and There. Was. No. Suffering. Now, someone who did not enjoy sailing would have had exactly the same material experience as I did but would have had a terrible time and definitely would have experienced suffering. Same situation but one would have suffering while the other did not. Josef bugman posted:I don't mean to have said that the rich cannot "feel" certain things. I think I may have been a bit emotional less night and not communicating properly. What I am meaning to try and say is that, on aggregate, the wealthy have the resources to deal with their feelings in a way that could be constructive. But they don't and won't because they are happier as they are than they would be as poorer people. And again, some sources of suffering can be address by wealth, others cannot; some sources of joy can purchased, others not; and which is which will be depend on the individual. I don't disagree that it is easier on a personal level to be rich than poor (and I certainly do not argue we need to have sympathy for the rich because "they are the real victims" or anything like that) but it does not solve all of the issues of being human. Also not sure what you mean by "the wealthy have the resources to deal with their feelings in a way that could be constructive. But they don't and won't because they are happier as they are than they would be as poorer people." Many wealthy people manage quite well with their lives and are not particularly helpful or kind to others but the same is true for those who are not so wealthy. There are those who attempt to use their wealth and power to help others and have a miserable experience because they do it poorly, can't do enough, or do a good job and suffer because of other things in their lives that have nothing to do with their wealth. The same is true of many poor people as well. Sure, lots of rich people are assholes and happy but so are lots of poor people (and some of these assholes may be happy and some may be sad for reasons that may or may not have to do with their assholery). The assholery of the rich man has the potential to have a much broader negative effect then the assholery of the poor man and is therefore of more concern but that does not mean that it is fundamentally different in kind - just scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 01:37
|
|