Oh, you didn't know? 😈

i think saying ‘always’ is almost always a stretch

You can love the art and hate the person but maybe not the artistic part in him Every person is composed of different morals irrespective of it being good or bad.. being an artist is one part which can be good if the art is good ... But the same person can be bad too

>8.9% percent of malnourished people in the world is not a lot in a historical perspective (though I agree it should be 0%). Certainly not compared to the famous failures of central planning.

It could have been zero for decades at this point, but isn't, precisely because multinational corporations dominate the planet and drive workers and peasants into subsistence level wages.

Every single socialist country eradicated famine within decades of their establishment, whereas capitalism has perpetuated it and directly killed hundreds of million people through starvation since, despite incredible advances in technology and productivity.

This is not to mention the progress held back by a billion people currently eating less than their daily needs as well them and many more being unable to receive adequate education, which every socialist says should be universally available to the highest level without a price tag to the student.

>This is my point in this discussion - markets are useful tools. Even if your goal is communism, ideas that come from capitalism can be a valuable part in getting there, if only for being tested extensively in both mathematical theory and real life and their strengths and weaknesses being known. Like, even if you somehow get the smartest and most compassionate people in the country to run it, Project Cybersyn-style, they may decide that the best way to get fast feedback to their policies from experts and the public is a prediction market with play money. The amount of play money they earned could be a useful parameter to evaluate their performance (alongside holistic considerations perhaps).

Markets predate capitalism by several thousands years and have existed in every single socialist nation so far to varying extents. Capitalism is simply the age of privately owned capital and wage labor as the driving forces of production.

I will agree that even in a best-case scenario for computer planning the results will likely say that for some time that we need markets for some particular forms of production, but that the science of planning needs to be heavily invested in. Planning sciences are largely missing from capitalist academia because the state itself is a class-based institution which will tend to heavily reinforce education that runs along its economic-ideological basis.

As long as the economy isn't actually controlled by the working masses though, none of these measures can be even tested.

So, the reason why I reject capitalism is because workers do everything and control nothing. I was born working class and I will die working class. So will likely you and almost everyone both of us will ever know too. A few of our friends might have successful small businesses if they wish to pursue that life, but almost nobody will be an actual capitalist.

I don't seek power, but I want to democratically be able to participate in production. I want to elect my bosses and be in equal social standing with all my co-workers, whether they require extra support at work or if they are the single most productive person there.

I have plenty of art in my life. You sound like you need some empathy, but it’s the internet so I won’t judge. Let’s just go on about our respective lives.

You sound like you need some art in your life. Or just interaction with humans. You don't really seem to grasp what's going on in the world and how people are. You act like only art has the duality of being good and evil.

the ONLY response? lolol

It’s not. Art can shape a mind. And if the artists shaping that mind is toxic it matters. Science is attenuated from cultural and individual biases; art isn’t.

Indeed, but why must you commit to one? If I'm on a road trip with 5 kids and ask them where they want to eat and 4 say McDonald's and one says taco bell, the utilitarian argument says go to McDonald's (ignoring for a moment ethical concerns about their business practices and eating meat in general). Most would agree that utilitarianism provides a good framework for ethically deciding this.

But say it's the taco bell kid's birthday and you promised him you'd eat wherever he wants. Suddenly the utilitarian framework falls apart and the deontological argument looks better.

So why commit to one at all? Different situations test the limits of every philosophy. Isn't it better to make each decision on its own merits instead of rigidly adhering to a framework that may or may not work well in that situation? It's great to learn about different schools of philosophy, their strongest arguments and criticisms of it. The mistake is the idea that we have to become adherents of it.

Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function"

the jedi never really did have a sense of humor did they

Academic philosophy usually stops where philosophy could only actually start. It is like an engine that takes you to where the journey should begin but it stops working at that point.

Better throw out all your electronics. You wouldn't want to justify slave labor just so you can post on reddit to amuse yourself for 7 seconds.

So you've never read a book, watched a movie or listened to stand up/podcast and had a thought that improved your life? The idea that art has no merit outside of being mindless entertainment is pretty closed minded. I wouldn't be surprised if the average person is more affected by art than by science when it comes to their own personal development. Obviously science impacts their lives indirectly but I would be surprised if it affects their lives more directly than art.

Not really. Furthermore, how do you figure logic and Platos’s forms AREN’T informed by culture? Everything we do is informed by the culture we grew up in, to some extent or another. Plato developed his philosophy as a consequence to the time, place, and society he grew up in. Also, logic isn’t a single road that leads to the same place for every circumstance. The values, norms, taboos, etc. of a society can and will dictate many outcomes to a single question, and those answers can be perfectly “logical” in those contexts.

>I don’t need to separate art from the artists because as amazing as art can be it doesn’t save lives or change society

Sure it does. Art therapy helps people process pain, trauma, grief, etc.

Works of art inspire revolutions, and change the fabric of society

I am talking about the article because art and science are different. I don’t need to separate art from the artists because as amazing as art can be it doesn’t save lives or change society. Separating science from the scientist is far more palatable and easier since science is built by a tremendous number of people all improving upon or developing that person’s work. Separating art from the artist is not analogous to pretty much any other type of development.

Ha! In my science b.a there was a mandatory philosophy class, that suffice to say, not one person seemed interested in its pursuit.

To be clear, I'm not responding to the article, I'm responding to your comment.

This is what I was reacting to: >why would I want philosophy to help people avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.

I don't care what the article says, I'm saying that this comment is missing the point of separating the art from the artist.

It's not about helping people avoid consequences; we can and should hold people accountable for their words and actions.

But if they have contributed work that has artistic, educational, scientific, etc. merit that is valuable to society at large, we should not jettison all of that simply because the person who contributed it has done or said terrible things. We should consider its value separately from it's creator, while also contextualizing it based on the sins of the creator.

that's because philosophy is a conversation, a dialogism, you don't interpret the world by yourself, you talk with others and come up with a conclusion that suits your vision best, and then once it's done, someone of your acabit will have a look into your work and build his own idea of the world based on yours, and try to overcome the initial postulate by reusing some arguments to better contradicting the others.

You can't understand anything in philosophy if you don't oppose ideas between connected peoples. For example, I'm french so I'll use this philosopher: You can't properly understand Descartes, if you don't read Montaigne, because the latter describes a world that Descartes reus afterward, and following this, if you really want to comprehend his work, you'd have to read D. Hume, because he's the actual direct opposition to rationalism in a direct response to R. Descartes, so reading him allows 2 things : being able to follow the flow of ideas and build a mindset that allows you to have an actual grasp to philosophy in the regard of the chronology, and secondly, it makes you able to come back better to understand what their predecessor thought, because these people had an interpretation on it that is probably the most accurate you'll get.

It's also why philosophy is easy to get into, and very hard to dig in deeper. It's easier to focus on one author and using it as a referential, than intercrossing them juxtaposingly and developping an actual "philosophical identity" that is essentially yours.

There’s a sense in which that’s true in the abstract, but when it comes down to actual decision making, the fact of whether you’re a deontologist or a utilitarian (to pick one topic) could mean a great deal.

Example: a deontologist will likely say that you should never cheat on your partner, even if you’re sure you could get away with it.

A utilitarian will say that you should maximize happiness, and if having an affair brings you and your affair partner happiness, and is hidden well enough from your spouse, then the affair may be not only justifiable but morally required.

So would you cheat or no? There’s practical applications to these ideas that will affect how you live your life.

Yes, that is obvious, but that doesn’t just mitigate the problematic author. Basically all this says is you gan separate the art from the artist as long as your separate the art from the artist. It’s neither novel nor particularly philosophically compelling.

[deleted]

You are revoking my Dimensional Extraction card??! This is bullshit, I'm a Diamond member. Let me speak to your supervisor.

Can you recommend good readings from that class?

more than a contradiction, it's a litteral oxymoron, a disinterested pursuit makes absolutely no sense at all, since pursuing something objectively means "going after", you don't chase something you can't fathom axiomatically. It's like chasing happiness, but what is happiness ? I know what it is in my own perception of the world, but what is it in yours, I don't know, I couldn't chase your happiness, because I have no ideas what makes you happy, this would particularily work well in a relationship, often disinterested love isn't that selfless, by making others happy, you make yourself happy.

To my idea of it, there's never such things as "disinterested X", and especially not something you're not even having a grasp on, it's a funny idea to think about, but in the actual world, it's not a contradiciton, it's an unattainability, it's absolutely unfeasable to reach that level of awareness to the point where you could start chasing something you have no knowledge of, otherwise philosophy would definitely be the most scientific and proeminent production, you'd be the emphasis of an anima mundi if you could do that in any degrees.

(I just wanted to talk about the first sentence, because I found it quite intriguing, even though it's not necessarily the idea you were developping within your argument)