Leibniz - On the problem of compound Monadological structures

I would like to open a discussion concerning various topics which can be seen as problematic in the philosophy of Leibniz and others

What Leibniz makes clear to us ( in Monadology) is that it is not at all clear why do particluars form structures. In fact its higly problematic when he assumes elementary, unperishing points called Monads (centers of activity and thought - which is here the same thing) We can clearly see this is a problem for Leibniz, because he is obliged to say two things. 1. Monads do not have windows, so they can’t be affected by other Monads. 2. (As a consequence) we have to postulate pre-established harmony to explain their coordination. For Leibniz, there is no other way he can explain it. So he does not know why there even exists this organization in the first place, which breaks his system, because he postulates in the first sentence of his Monadology that there in fact are compound structures, from which (he claims) we see that there have to some elementary particles. I do not think there has been any progress on this question down to our time from the pre-socratics. Leibniz is bold enough to assume pluralism of substances having a value of it’s own. Pre-socratics dissolved particulars in something general. They had to explain particulars by Necessity, becuase it simply mattered very little- it did not become a problem for them. Leibnize’s first postulate in Monadology serves a summary to ancient physics. They asked HOW it happens that compound composed of something elementary and unchanging. It was a mechanical question. Now Platón and Aristotle wanted to know WHY it happens in the first place. For they adhered to Anaxagoras and his concept of Nous, which is Leibnize’s pre-established harmony. Till this day it is still a question HOW it happens. For physics found laws governing formations of structures. But WHY elementary particles should be tuned to each other, WHY they are even made to go further, and not simply stay what they are ,is still a mystery. It should be remembered that Leukippos was much further than modern science. Because he knew that given atoms and empty space, they will just stay that way forever. So he postulated Necessity, as every bad philosophy does. He didn’t know why, so he said it must be so. I think Democritus hit on that too, se they adhered to Necessity- it has to be like this. This is an aswer constsntly re-affirmed by quantum physics. It’s trying to pin down a mechanism which could explain HOW are particles constitueted to form structures. But the real question is WHY should there be something unchanging forming something changeable, and what prones this formation have not been even properly asked. I see it only in Leibniz, but he does not say it explicitly

I will happily enter into further discussion, feel free to attack whatever statement you feel uncomfortable with. This is not a argumentatively coherent thesis, I simply do not understand it and want to have a better grasp of it.

Anarchism has existed in real societies with real problems like war and diplomacy. The idea that it is an unattainable ideal is a lie. The Iroquois Confederacy springs to mind as the first example.

[removed]

If anarchy is a fantasy, then meritocracy is a form of insanity. There has yet to be a good definition of merit, and worse, there's hardly ever been an attempt at one. Merit gets defined by the people at the top of the system in order to preserve their position and elevate those who help them preserve their position. And so, without fail, every meritocracy is a scam, and the result is that those with something approaching a more objective definition of merit are not elevated. We're not even at the point where we can even conceive of an objective definition of merit.

For instance, merit under capitalism is profit maximization. So those elevated to the top of society are the ones who... well by and large started at the top. Even if they didn't, it turns out that you can maximize profits best by being parasitic on society and the natural environment, and so those in the greatest position of power under capitalism are also those most responsible for the world's greatest problems. This is a pretty typical result in historical attempts at a kind of meritocracy.

A society focused on the worth and autonomy of an individual person wouldn't discriminate for or against them based on merit. Ultimately, merit is just reducing a person down to the instrumental use they have for someone else's ambitions.

>sue you for stealing the name
>
>Wait, can I even do that in anarchy world?

Of course you can! What're they gonna to, sue you?

It depends on what counts as evidence and knowledge and things. I think a lot of colonialists, for example, thought they HAD TO conquer peoples because that's what e.g. Rome did and Rome kicked ass. There was much hemming and hawing when it started becoming apparent that the new science of I think the 1600s was answering questions about the natural world better than simply consulting the ancient texts, and even then their answer was "we're just continuing what the ancients started," not, "they were confused, we should ignore what they had to say." That was more, what, the Modernism of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when so much of so many people's experience had been so outside anything the ancients talked about that they could convince people it was irrelevant.

>Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.

What are some examples of successful ones?

>The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community.

It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.

>We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism.

But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely. Marx himself saw socialism as a desirable end-state of capitalism, not an alternative. It wouldn't fundamentally change much in terms of societal stratification or environmental degradation, it would just mean worker shared ownership of capital, not the end of a system where capital is the key driving force of an economic system. Whatever follows capitalism would be something completely different. UBI is a closer approximation of what a post-capitalist society would look like (though it's also problematic).

>By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.

I think discussing it as an interesting thought experiment can be fun and informative, but it isn't terribly useful because it is neither practical nor desirable. It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.

Ideally, of course, you'll have some sort of meritocracy, but any system that concentrates authority will work better than one that doesn't. And of course it won't be one person ruling really. You'll have the deep state, the bureaucracy full of thousands of civil servants, all screened through the need to get degrees and certifications, who do the heavy lifting.

And you're right! Things can go very wrong if the people at the top suck. Sure, of course. But a system where you have someone in charge coordinating a response to complex problems as they arise is still better than one where you have no one in charge hence no coordinated responses. The former may sometimes fail, even fail spectacularly, but at least it can sometimes succeed. The later can only fail, always and forever, until someone takes charge.

No, I do not think capitalism is predetermined by the existence of markets. Capitalism didn't emerge organically; it emerged through violence. The enclosure of land and the privatization of the world was militaristic; as was the suppression of labor and of women, who were burned as witches. Even today witches are burned where capitalism is getting established. This is not something that just happened on its own.

Yes, some forms of authority are going to exist, but that isn't contradictory to anarchism. Just like authoritarianism doesn't mean pure 100% control over the oppressed (which is impossible), it's opposite is not 100% pure freedom from control. What anarchism represents is the minimizing of hierarchy and control. Instead of thinking about this as a struggle between two imaginary extreme ways of being, think of it as the struggle between two opposing processes of movement - one towards greater control over others and the other towards lesser control over others.

I recall another thread where a bunch from the no AI community, were planning to flood social media with Mickey Mouse AI generated stuff to precipitate some kind of legal storm that would clarify the IP issues.

I agree with this, and OP seems to be passive agressive and overly defendive instead of considering he should have included more examples. There is a mention about Nietzsche critizing all systems, which is something that anyone can do, but no other examples of why the philosopher can be misinterpreted, and that is honestly repeated too much in the article but without substance to back it up. The amount of knowledge that OP has is irrelevant, I just know that this article adds close to nothing to the conversation he himself started, and the part about 'cool' and 'edgy' is really off putting in any serious context.

But let's just be clear, you do endorse the existence of a regime sufficiently dominant to forcefully prevent the establishment of an inn? And therefore you reject the author's call for an "anarchy" that precludes dominance? Furthermore you agree with my original claim that...

> If we allow people to engage in voluntary market exchange, something looking like capitalism will organically emerge. It takes authoritarianism to disrupt that. You have to use force to stop it, or to rearrange it.

...and you believe that this is a good thing?

The problem I have with anarchism is that it seems to be more of a wish fulfillment fantasy than any sort of reasonable political philosophy.

The obvious response to anarchism goes along the lines of, "What happens to your anarchist society when the tanks come rolling over the border and you get invaded?" And anarchists either get unrealistic, and say "We could fight off a well trained powerful modern military with sticks and hunting rifles", or they admit they have no solution to this and say "But maybe someday".

When the primary criticism of your proposed system of government says that it is impossible to achieve, and your response is, "yes, it is impossible, but maybe some day it will become possible", I have to wonder what the point is of even talking about it.

So anarchists end up claiming their system is impossible to achieve (today), while also claiming it is an ideal to reach for. Why not focus instead on whatever actually is possible? If we can't have anarchy because the powerful will take advantage of it and seize control, then what can we have which is both reasonable and in keeping with the values that anarchists have?

You should read The Dispossessed if you haven’t. One of my favorite novels of all time, and it’s got anarchism.

> Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.

Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.

> How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?

The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community. The material conditions of life will create some inequality, but it wouldn't be the kind of inequality imposed through force that is normal under capitalism.

> Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system.

Certainly. We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism. The Nazis began as an anti-capitalist movement before Hitler came to power (and got rid of the original anti-capitalists along with the rest), so yes, not all alternatives are desirable.

Yet, critiques like the anarchist critique are the alternative to reactionary politics that results in worsening conditions. By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.

In some countries, governments provide housing on a temporary basis for people who need or want it; thus replacing the need for private landlords. One could also institute a rationing or sharing system by removing housing as a commodity from the economy. There's historically an unlimited number of options to this issue and in no way are we limited to feudal landlordism nor is capitalism predetermined.

I feel like the article responds to this, but who are these people that are adapt at governing others and what system actually puts them in places of power? Looking at the world around me today, I see incompetence at the top just as much or more than at the bottom.

Also, not everyone has to be good at self-governing, but if you put one person in charge of everyone else, they certainly have to be good at it due to the complexity and the consequences. The argument that a single person should be in charge of an organization seems like the belief that the best brain cell should run the entire human body. Chomsky describes the consequences of this ideology as "institutional stupidity".

In the list of the seven dominants, the author has neglected the eighth - society. Nepotism, tribalism, old boy network, cliques, cults, and coolness all figure into it. This force exists in institutions (usually regarded as an undesirable aberration), but it's exposed in its raw form when the other forces are absent, at times when, according to the author, anarchism really shines through - in gathering of friends, in the workplace when the boss is absent, in a high-school recess. This force allows some people to undeservedly have more influence and garner more sympathy than others, for reasons that can't be squarely pinned down like wealth, race or gender.

The author clamors for a natural organization, but "natural" in this case means only what people consider natural; a natural leader is basically just the most charismatic person around. He condemns civilization's aspiration to make everything under the sun legible, but illegibility is the best friend of social power, which runs unopposed when the legible forces of domination are dismantled.

I suspect anarchists don't see raw social power as a problem because they're the kind of people who navigate smoothly through it and use it as their primary mean of understanding and interacting with the world, kinda like how right-libertarians don't see raw economic power as oppressive.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]