What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

objectivity

everything in today's political world is too relative and too easy to manipulate when, in fact, things are a lot easier than they appear to be if we just get the unadulturated truth. Key words such as "freedom" and "equality" and "fairness" and "party" are all pointless in the face of pure, objective logic and rational thinking.

In other words, when it comes to politics (at least in America), people act like an emo chick on her period.

mrbojangles25

please tell me it's not randian.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

everything in today's political world is too relative and too easy to manipulate when, in fact, things are a lot easier than they appear to be if we just get the unadulturated truth. Key words such as "freedom" and "equality" and "fairness" and "party" are all pointless in the face of pure, objective logic and rational thinking.

In other words, when it comes to politics (at least in America), people act like an emo chick on her period.

frannkzappa

please tell me it's not randian.

wtf is "randian"?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

coolbeans90

If only there was an ideology that was purely objective and stemmed from the premise that A is A.

that would be idiotic, one can not make an assertion the real world based of A=A

A=/=A

A is equivalent to A

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

everything in today's political world is too relative and too easy to manipulate when, in fact, things are a lot easier than they appear to be if we just get the unadulturated truth. Key words such as "freedom" and "equality" and "fairness" and "party" are all pointless in the face of pure, objective logic and rational thinking.

In other words, when it comes to politics (at least in America), people act like an emo chick on her period.

mrbojangles25

please tell me it's not randian.

wtf is "randian"?

the form of "objectivity" based on ayn rands teachings.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

everything in today's political world is too relative and too easy to manipulate when, in fact, things are a lot easier than they appear to be if we just get the unadulturated truth. Key words such as "freedom" and "equality" and "fairness" and "party" are all pointless in the face of pure, objective logic and rational thinking.

In other words, when it comes to politics (at least in America), people act like an emo chick on her period.

mrbojangles25

please tell me it's not randian.

wtf is "randian"?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

please tell me it's not randian.

coolbeans90

wtf is "randian"?

:lol:

no, I dont think so.  I like people.

I also did not see Ayn Rand mentioned in the wiki for technocracy, btw

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

frannkzappa

If only there was an ideology that was purely objective and stemmed from the premise that A is A.

that would be idiotic, one can not make an assertion the real world based of A=A

A=/=A

A is equivalent to A

Good God

I was referencing a dear friend of ours.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

and you seem quite content with the present and have no urge to better humanity or think of the future.

frannkzappa

no it is inevitable and cyclical, the choice is to descend into incompetent tyranny or to be uplifted to technocracy.

I'd choose an ineffective form of democracy over rule by a select few individuals who would only prop up their own.  Like Beans said earlier in this thread, it would ultimately turn into crony tyranny in a decade or two.  Humans aren't altruists, if there isn't some outside mechanism to hold these 'experts' accountable, they'd ultimately do what any human with too much power and no one to be accountable to does:  Abuse it. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If only there was an ideology that was purely objective and stemmed from the premise that A is A.

coolbeans90

that would be idiotic, one can not make an assertion the real world based of A=A

A=/=A

A is equivalent to A

Good God

I was referencing a dear friend of ours.

i thought you were lai....

didn't bother to look at avy or name lol.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Some of the worst things in history have happened for the 'betterment' of a country or humanity. I don't view people as live stock to be corralled by a select few who view themselves as being superior (ignoring that such a structure would inevitably lead to cronyism and corruption). Eliminating ALL forms of the democratic process is insane.HoolaHoopMan

no it is inevitable and cyclical, the choice is to descend into incompetent tyranny or to be uplifted to technocracy.

I'd choose an ineffective form of democracy over rule by a select few individuals who would only prop up their own. Like Beans said earlier in this thread, it would ultimately turn into crony tyranny in a decade or two. Humans aren't altruists, if there isn't some outside mechanism to hold these 'experts' accountable, they'd ultimately do what any human with too much power and no one to be accountable to does: Abuse it.

Democracy is never permanent it always has devolved.

there is no incentive nor is their and individual with enough power to abuse it in technocracy.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no it is inevitable and cyclical, the choice is to descend into incompetent tyranny or to be uplifted to technocracy.

frannkzappa

I'd choose an ineffective form of democracy over rule by a select few individuals who would only prop up their own. Like Beans said earlier in this thread, it would ultimately turn into crony tyranny in a decade or two. Humans aren't altruists, if there isn't some outside mechanism to hold these 'experts' accountable, they'd ultimately do what any human with too much power and no one to be accountable to does: Abuse it.

Democracy is never permanent it always has devolved.

there is no incentive nor is their and individual with enough power to abuse it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I'd choose an ineffective form of democracy over rule by a select few individuals who would only prop up their own. Like Beans said earlier in this thread, it would ultimately turn into crony tyranny in a decade or two. Humans aren't altruists, if there isn't some outside mechanism to hold these 'experts' accountable, they'd ultimately do what any human with too much power and no one to be accountable to does: Abuse it.

HoolaHoopMan

Democracy is never permanent it always has devolved.

there is no incentive nor is their and individual with enough power to abuse it.

if those actions are based on the gaining of wisdom i don't see the problem

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Democracy is never permanent it always has devolved.

there is no incentive nor is their and individual with enough power to abuse it.

frannkzappa

if those actions are based on the gaining of wisdom i don't see the problem

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

your a technocrat in the making. :)

frannkzappa

technocracy is meritocratic...

they go hand in hand.

Meritocracy is where you earn your position through accomplishment. Technocracy is where you've are appointed by our position because someone thinks you're an "expert." Frank Zappanism, meanwhile, is where you eat the yellow snow and whiz on the electric fence.

Recent posts itt have shown why I have a love-hate relationship w/ philosophy. Go long and deep enough and everything becomes weird, abstract, and convoluted as shit. Esp. metaphysics, jesus. Rich3232

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]Recent posts itt have shown why I have a love-hate relationship w/ philosophy. Go long and deep enough and everything becomes weird, abstract, and convoluted as shit. Esp. metaphysics, jesus. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Rich3232"]Recent posts itt have shown why I have a love-hate relationship w/ philosophy. Go long and deep enough and everything becomes weird, abstract, and convoluted as shit. Esp. metaphysics, jesus. Rich3232

also:

1. anyone can be a philosopher

2. you can never be wrong, provided you stay in the philophizing context

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] In my experience philosophy is the art of over-thinking things. mrbojangles25

also:

1. anyone can be a philosopher

2. you can never be wrong, provided you stay in the philophizing context

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Rich3232"] There is a point where you just go, "Fvck this, let's just assume some of this shit are true even if we can't "prove" it" Ace6301

also:

1. anyone can be a philosopher

2. you can never be wrong, provided you stay in the philophizing context

Love, if love/ahavah is your guiding principle than you can never go wrong.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Meritocracy trumps technocracy.

OrkHammer007

technocracy is meritocratic...

they go hand in hand.

Meritocracy is where you earn your position through accomplishment. Technocracy is where you've are appointed by our position because someone thinks you're an "expert." Frank Zappanism, meanwhile, is where you eat the yellow snow and whiz on the electric fence.

which is why i son't support pure technocracy i advertise it as a platonic meritocratic technocracy.

how do you think the experts pick you? based on merit and qualification.

10 points for referencing the "St.Alfonzo's Pancake Breakfast" suite btw.

I value not having Julia Gillard as PM.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

coolbeans90

If only there was an ideology that was purely objective and stemmed from the premise that A is A.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

neither of those are immediately necessary.

frannkzappa

ultimately to seek knowledge and wisdom and to be free of ignorance.

also:

1. anyone can be a philosopher

2. you can never be wrong, provided you stay in the philophizing context

mrbojangles25

Plain utter bullshit. It's obvious you have never even remotely touched anything philosophy related.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

objectivity

Laihendi

If only there was an ideology that was purely objective and stemmed from the premise that A is A.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] What is the purpose of the life of an individual?Laihendi

ultimately to seek knowledge and wisdom and to be free of ignorance.

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] What is the purpose of the life of an individual?Laihendi

ultimately to seek knowledge and wisdom and to be free of ignorance.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

ultimately to seek knowledge and wisdom and to be free of ignorance.

frannkzappa

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

ultimately to seek knowledge and wisdom and to be free of ignorance.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Seeking knowledge is a means of achieving happiness. Knowledge without a sense of personal satisfaction is pointless.Laihendi

I stated your post contains narcissitic qualities. That is all. 

In response to the rest of your post I am quoting, there are cultures which teach ambition is detrimental to the human experience, so there are people opposing your view on ambition and their reasons are not apathetic or nihilistic. They actually contrast that state and philosophy by promoting altruism and self-actualization. Ambition and reason are seperate ideas.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Seeking knowledge is a means of achieving happiness. Knowledge without a sense of personal satisfaction is pointless.Laihendi

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

Those things are impossible in the face of ignorance. the only way to remove ignorance is through knowledge.

One is not truly rational until he understands the world around him and the only way to do that is through knowledge.

happiness can't even be defined until you have knowledge.

knowledge is the highest calling. nothing matters or exists without it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Seeking knowledge is a means of achieving happiness. Knowledge without a sense of personal satisfaction is pointless.Laihendi

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

Ace6301

this i can agree with.

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

coolbeans90

it is, "animalistic" desires need to be appeased but they can't be allowed to control you or direct your life.

desires should be kept in check by ideals

ideals should be kept in check by knowledge.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

frannkzappa

it is, "animalistic" desires need to be appeased but they can't be allowed to control you or direct your life.

desires should be kept in check by ideals

ideals should be kept in check by knowledge.

I wouldn't draw a distinction between the two lower layers.

Anyway, desires are biologically inherent. You can utilize them efficiently if you so choose. If directed properly, they can serve as a benefit in that there would be motivation to do sh!t, and that sh!t can be productive. This is very simple.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

coolbeans90

it is, "animalistic" desires need to be appeased but they can't be allowed to control you or direct your life.

desires should be kept in check by ideals

ideals should be kept in check by knowledge.

I wouldn't draw a distinction between the two lower layers.

Anyway, desires are biologically inherent. You can utilize them efficiently if you so choose. If directed properly, they can serve as a benefit in that there would be motivation to do sh!t, and that sh!t can be productive. This is very simple.

cause i totally didn't just say that.:P

as for the first two layers do some research, they are very different.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

it is, "animalistic" desires need to be appeased but they can't be allowed to control you or direct your life.

 

desires should be kept in check by ideals

ideals should be kept in check by knowledge.

frannkzappa

I wouldn't draw a distinction between the two lower layers.

Anyway, desires are biologically inherent. You can utilize them efficiently if you so choose. If directed properly, they can serve as a benefit in that there would be motivation to do sh!t, and that sh!t can be productive. This is very simple.

cause i totaly didn't just say that.:P

I misread your post. When you said "it is" - I thought you meant that "it is" something to be criticized rather than "it is" a productive outlet.

My fault really.

Eh, had I read your response a little more thoroughly (starting to fall asleep), I could've contextualized, but no big deal either way.

Also, looking at the two other tiers, I think that it is more of a continuum than a hard line (responsiveness is not a 'yes' or 'no' thing), and both, ideally, should be p. directly subservient to reason to the extent possible.

Also, looking at the two other tiers, I think that it is more of a continuum than a hard line (responsiveness is not a 'yes' or 'no' thing), and both, ideally, should be p. directly subservient to reason to the extent possible.

coolbeans90

this is exactly my point.

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Are you implying that there is something wrong with a person wanting himself to be happy? A person cannot find meaning in his life if he disconnects his ego with his existence. You are essentially advocating apathy and nihilism at the expense of ambition. Ambition is the source of all human achievement and, ultimately, any action by an individual conscious of what he is doing. To deny ambition is to reduce your life to that of an animal - to act according to instinct and commands, rather than reason. If that is what you want, then you are by definition anti-life (that is, life qua man).Laihendi

the truley ignorant can not think, for they can not understand the world around them.

but nobody is ever 100% ignorant, their very genetics grants them an initial knowledge of certain things as well as instincts.

of course concepts exist without man, only forms truly exist perfectly.

happiness as it applies to a person is infinitely unique and imperfect.

it is impossible to compare happiness between people on a perfectly accurate basis. the only way a person can become aware of and act upon their copy of the theory of happiness is through knowledge.

A=A means nothing to a real person.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

Ace6301

no, we suppress animalistic desires to gain knowledge.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

frannkzappa

no, we suppress animalistic desires to gain knowledge.