The conception of the wealthy "taking from the impoverished" is a ludicrous belief
The wealthy nor the impoverished, cannot deceitfully take what is not theirs; as this idea is impossible. The idea of wanting is a mere faculty of desire. It is the desire for one to want what is beneficial. However, man is satisfied by mere material representations, as they satisfy his long term desires e.g,. Hunger, fixed desires, constant. These material representations in pure form, correspond to things that also benefit man materially, or are a means to satisfying us materially (excluding artificial representations e.g,. money). In the artificial forms of material representations or objects of purpose, material things like money are accounted for. Money is by no means something that bears with it immediate satisfaction. Money is rather a purposeless material object that only, when applied, leads to a purpose within purposelessness. Meaning that money satisfies an objective goal to find what is materially beneficial e.g,. food, protection, etc. However, money itself shares no objective purpose. This form of material deception, then often, affects the wealthy class and the impoverished class. The impoverished class, sees the wealthy class as 'stealing" from it, and is therefore oppressive. However the wealthy class sees the impoverished class with the exact same view. What both of these representative classes do not see, is the fact that money is merely a false material representation of value. Therefore, money in a pure material form, is valueless. From this proposition, we can then conclude that no class can oppress another class with the superficial existence of 'money' as a mere concept.
Comments (49)
Have you read Marx?
Ok. Can I have all your moneyz?
:smirk:
Re-read the text. There's no mention of corporatism or corporate enterprise. This is the examination of materialism and its value.
Re-read if you have to. I discuss how material value holds resourcefulness as a means to worthy material satisfactions e.g,. food, lust, sexual gratification. However, materialism is simply a MEANS in this sense and remains only MEANS unless it holds direct value.
So no, i wouldn't want you to take something that holds extended meaning, although I can object to it only being a means of necessity and not a necessity itself.
I have read Marx along with positions on him. Read Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm. This position explains Marx's conception of 'Alienation' along with the Hegelian concept, as a means to man being alienated from himself (species-life, species-being as 'collective'). In this book, Fromm lays down the psychoanalytical interpretation of Marx's Socialism as a revolt against the dehumanization of man through materialism. Namely one of these concepts is "money" as only being held as material capital. However, he states this form of materialism enslaves man as a mere product of his creation. This leads to the objectification of man, as he sees himself as separate from his concept of creation.
Quoting Noah33
Clearly you never dated a stripper.
:rofl:
Resourcefulness and value are distinct because of their nature. Resourcefulness is defined as supply. Value, is defined as the supplier. These two distinctions separate the meaning of what is being supplied, and what the material worth of what has been supplied is.
Resourcefulness is not the same as value in the sense that a resource can have a definite purposive element. However, value is the simple judgement of that object that is resourceful. This is a simple question of semantics.
Quoting Noah33
You could hardly be more arbitrary.
Immediate sexual gratification does not count as immediate satisfaction. True satisfaction is gained by means of satisfying a fixed desire i.e,. hunger.
Please explain how this argument is arbitrary.
Quoting Noah33
This categorization is purely arbitrary.
The abundance of what is resourceful in nature, must follow a naturalistic faculty. This means that an object can only be resourceful if it contains within itself a rationally natural purpose to it. The architectural construction of a house is a perfect example of this juxtaposition of purpose. A house can be used to store different items of human purpose or human need, even though one may not be willing to live in this space. However the rational motive applied by cognition to this 'house', depends entirely on the buyer and his predetermined motive for the object in question. Money in this sense is not only synthetic and illusion, but it is also a treacherous thing. Meaning must not be created without purpose like money, as this is applying human cognition to an object, and therefore only applying purpose to something that may not have purpose (meaning).
No, it is reasoned. When you dissect the meaning of linguistic interpretation you realize that many different interpretations can be made from different words.
There is no absolute definition of "resourceful" or "value" in philosophy. I have acknowledged the linguistic meaning here, and stated that they both have similar standards and relations. However, nothing is absolute in this sense.
By this argument I could call your statement arbitrary. It's about the interpretation of what is worth, and my proposition is simply a proposition. However, if you wish to tell me how sexual gratification that is artificially produced is not secondary in importance, then you can do so.
So let's try it the other way around: "Give me your money -- all of it, right now. I'm impoverished. I don't care what your philosophy is, how you got your money, or what you were planning to do with it. Just hand it over. Cash will do nicely. If you don't give it to me, we (me and some well armed associates) will just take it. Hey, taking money from the rich is an honorable revolutionary action. It's traditional. And rational too. What's the point of making the peasants hand over their scarcely edible spoiled potatoes?
Once you give us your money and are poor, you will be in line to inherit the kingdom of heaven, or some such thing.
Lucky you!
I agree. If I am interpreting you correctly this is what I said.
"The abundance of what is resourceful in nature, must follow a naturalistic faculty. This means that an object can only be resourceful if it contains within itself a rationally natural purpose to it."
This is were I must disagree completely. Natural objects do not have a purpose, they have a history, or a trajectory, but certainly not a purpose. Something is a resource for someone in that this someone's umwelt and ontic constitution allows for that thing to gain value. Folic acid is an important resource to a tick, it has value for it, because half of a tick's umwelt is about using folic acid to represent the world. Folic acid barely has a value for me, except as a marker of effort and bad hygiene.
But folic acid has no purpose in itself. Just a list of observed characteristics and interactions with other chemicals.
"Immediate sexual gratification does not count as immediate satisfaction. True satisfaction is gained by means of satisfying a fixed desire i.e,. hunger."
Satisfaction is satisfaction is .... If it wasn't true satisfication, it wouldn't satisfy.
If you examine the natural faculties of objects and their disposition to other objects, like you have done here, you do get to a point in which objects in themselves, may serve no objective purpose. Objective p-urpose as defined, is anything which does not effect all concepts or objects on a universal basis. However, subjective universal validity does exist. Subjective universality as a concept, entails that different objects that share a similar relationship, may be classified taxonomically in this perspective as simply sharing a similar concept in nature. So in a simplification, what may have an impact on you or me is not universally valid by any means, unless it was a subjective interpretation of universal validity e.g,. all humans have hands (excluding abnormalities). Those chemicals that are classified scientifically by their respected taxonomical classifications, exhibit uses in themselves, as they provide the necessary stimuli for the object in question (tick) or resource (Folic Acid).
The phrasing I presented on sexual gratification and satisfaction was poor. What was meant to be interp-reted, was that certain forms of satisfaction are worth more then other forms of satisfaction. This is p-roven by the mere fact that satisfaction is not a constant desire, as it changes from subjective interpretation often. What satisfies me today, could maybe not satisfy me tomorrow is the dilemma here, and it's important. Only the forms of universal satisfaction like hunger, taste, and pleasure as aforementioned, are fundamental. Forms of satisfaction that have a natural motive grounded in their motive e.g,. sexual gratification from prostitution, is exploitation.
And in a nutshell, though it is off topic, I see your picture of Heidegger.
So...
What is the meaning of being?
I myself am not necessarily a fan of Martin Heidegger, mostly because of his postmodernist persp-ective. However, Being can be defined in Being and Time as simply Being in itself. This means that Being cannot be determined by any other standards besides the fact that beings are beings in themselves. It sounds odd, but his main rational behind it is that a Being is not the literal Being like a man or a woman, but rather something of a conscious nature. Sense is also a large aspect of this as a motivation behind Being. I haven't read Heidegger in a long time, and I will p-robably have to revisit it eventually.
"If we grasp Being, we will clarify the meaning of being, or "sense" of being (Sinn des Seins), where by "sense" Heidegger means that "in terms of which something becomes intelligible as something."[9] Presented in relation to the quality of knowledge, according to Heidegger, this sense of being precedes any notions of how or in what manner any particular being or beings exist, and is thus pre-scientific.[10] Thus, in Heidegger's view, the question of the meaning of being would be an explanation of the understanding preceding any other way of knowing, such as the use of logic, theory, specific regional ontology.[11] At the same time, there is no access to being other than via beings themselves—hence pursuing the question of being inevitably means questioning a being with regard to its being.[12] Heidegger argues that a true understanding of being (Seinsverständnis) can only proceed by referring to particular beings, and that the best method of pursuing being must inevitably, he says, involve a kind of hermeneutic circle, that is (as he explains in his critique of prior work in the field of hermeneutics), it must rely upon repetitive yet progressive acts of interpretation. "The methodological sense of phenomenological description is interpretation."[13]"
Sourc(es):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time
Exploitation is but another aspect of an event seen as part of a beings umwelt. As such, what may seem exploitative on one side for you might not be for the actor you feel is being exploited. Thats why universal subjectivity is but a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. I have often bitched at Wittgenstein's 'even if lion could talk, we would not understand them' on this site in the past, but comparatively to your position, he is much closer to the truth.
If you're referring to what I said, a natural motive is any motive that follows a natural law or princip-le. From the of 'natural law' or 'primitive law'. We can elaborate on how a natural motive usually constitutes a mode of existence that correlates to different objects. However, as the previous comment pointed out, different forms of naturalism exist for certain objects.
"The reason why prostitution may be exploitative is not found in the nature of sexuality itself, but in the specific relation established between the actors. As such, prostitution may be exactly as exploitative as a sexual relation within the context of a longterm relationship."
That would be a correct proposition, if it weren't for the further extension of thought, in which certain forms of sexual gratification, even if not prostitution which is settled for material benefit on one party, are also exploitative. Then there's the idea that prostitution is not just material and therefore exploitative, but prostitution extends to the immaterial. This means that prostitution is not just involved with the factor of money, but is also involved with sexual gratification that is in a long-term relationship-. However, this gratification may be unnatural, and contain perverse actions.
"Exploitation is but another aspect of an event seen as part of a beings umwelt. As such, what may seem exploitative on one side for you might not be for the actor you feel is being exploited. Thats why universal subjectivity is but a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. I have often bitched at Wittgenstein's 'even if lion could talk, we would not understand them' on this site in the past, but comparatively to your position, he is much closer to the truth."
A form of universal subjectivity which does not posses an equal distribution or balance on both sides, is not a universally subjective concept. Universal subjectivity, would apply between two parties of a similar natural disposition. If one p-arty is entirely different, then it cannot therefore be universally subjective.
A natural law or faculty of motivation for man, would involve a historical process, very similar to Hegel's concept of Hegelian Dialectics. The thing about natural motivation, is it must however, connect to something that is positive or negative to man. History is always either the two of those sides, and thus, is a natural process. In order for something to always remain a natural motivation (like history), it must always be in progression (not in the societal sense, or the ethical sense).
What was previously said may have sounded like an informal false dichotomy. However, i'm not taking the position that man can not cultivate in history a middle position, but the outcome of this position will always have a positive or negative consequence.
In addition, naturalism as a motivation, can be divided into natural cognitive judgments, and natural material judgments. The former is a judgement of how the mind progresses and determines real world natural things i.e,. philosophy, ethics, logic, etc. Real world physical representations, must be purely natural and not distorted by human intervention in their natural existence. E.g,. plants, animals, etc.
Does not an object exist for me? How can it be said to exist in itself as a chair apart from the intentionality that designates 'it' as chair, apart from it falling into the nothingness that would be the undifferentiated everything?
I think at this point its fair to assume that we resides in different realities. Crap, does that also mean modal logic actually has some use? :groan:
An object exists for you in the sense that you apply cognition into the tools necessary to define and construct the object in question. The conception of an object depends entirely on its creator (for man), and is in that sense, man-made of course. In questioning whether a chair in excluding the intention of its man-made conception, cannot be an absolute if this is what you are referring to. If it remains an absolute, simply because of its ability to satisfy human needs, then it would rather be an object of human purpose. However, it would fall into nothingness due to its uses as an object not being properly represented in cognition. This means that it could not exist objectively as a char as a chair has various meanings.
Transcendentalism, is rooted in our mental processes and cognition. Things that are rooted in cognition, may posses a natural rational interpretation behind them. Two objects that are not universally subjective because they share a common understanding, but groups of things that are united in some way, share a common understanding. This is what would be universally subjective. the intersubjectivity aspect, which can be sub-divided by the subjective group-s that share different preferences, is still subjectively universal. This is due to the simple fact that they share similar elements of understanding that unite them, which is irrelevant from the smaller molecular differences in their structures.
Yes, this epistemological examination would be introducing the position of realism.
If the realist valuation of epistemology is accurate... How could the true object be at all if all that is apprehended is the perception or conception of it? Would this not suffice to represent that truth?
I believe that in the realist valuation of the world, the conception of an object can only be true through man p-lacing his own judgments of cognition on the object or subject of question. However, where a conjecture arises, is whether an aesthetically beautiful object of taste, which provides its own colorful outline and geometrical outline can be perceived differently. An object that is organ as formerly regarded, can posses certain naturally beautiful features, however, it is only our perception that we are seeing the same colors, and not the absolute. Anything that is apprehended can also share a similar error in nature. However, natural objects do have an object form of attractiveness, which irregardless of the aesthetical form we perceive it as possessing, holds objectivity in nature. If the perception of an object as representation is held in nature, the natural form must always be held in cognition and physical representation. This diversion creates a distinction between one world of Cognition and Physical. If both of these aspects are shared in one, then it is absolute truth. However, if one is missing from the other, then it cannot complete itself, and is therefore an inaccurate representation of the real world and apprehension of truth.
This is wonky in two ways. In the first place, economic value is subjective, marginal utility. In the second place, in representing ratios of exchange of (subjectively) valued goods, money can't be "false," it either does its job or it doesn't (e.g. if the currency is inflated, etc.)
Value appears objective only because the multitude of economic actors, exchanging stuff according to their individual scales of preferences, results in relatively stable prices most of the time, but the system constantly adjusts to shifts in those preferences (e.g. something new is invented, lots of people now want it, and consequently some hitherto-valueless resource now has a value; people were sitting oblivious on top of coal and oil reserves that had no great value until various kinds of machinery were invented that everyone suddenly wanted to use).