PhD...Ehh

[pernoctator]

Are you pointing to some abstract notion I am unaware of? Or are you simply writing words for the sake of writing words?

I see nothing confusing about the sentence to which you replied (and butchered the grammar of). I ask again, what is it that you don't understand about it?

The debate is about whether others should be burdened by those delicate, intuitive and creative individuals who detest "practical" work and would simply like to do whatever they want and not have to bear the costs of their choices.

No, that is not what the debate is about. That's what your strawman is about. I won't repeat myself; if you continue to ignore the clarifications that have been posted and choose to cling to your dishonest misrepresentations, there is no conversation to be had. You're essentially talking to yourself, carrying on an argument that only exists within your imagination.

[highlight]Are they contributing by engaging in transactions with other individuals and people indirectly benefits by their participation in the division of labour? Or are they contributing by some sort of involvement with an abstraction?[/highlight] I think you also have some sort of strange conception about how wealth is created and transferred within society.

[highlight]No.[/highlight] They're parasites because they wish to live at the expense of others.

Why do you ask questions if you have already decided the answer? "No" is incorrect. I don't know where you got this idea that Philosophyking and his ilk advocate contributing nothing to society (even after he corrected you and explicitly said the opposite). Perhaps you interpreted the phrase "practical and profitable" too literally. I'm sure the point there was that prosperity can be measured in ways other than dollars in an account and the number of widgets that the factory pumped out this month.

Premise: To make your ideal world, where people don't have to work for what they want; they can simply study what ever they want and not bear the costs or consequences; they are "allocated" their desired position and can live with content and happiness because of this role.

Question Proposed: Who is going to pay for it? Who will bear the costs? Who will bear the consequences? Who is the sacrifice? Who is Atlas?

Hah of course, the old "let's see you do better" argument. No, one doesn't need a solution in order to recognize a problem, and pointing out that a solution is lacking doesn't count as a valid argument against the criticism.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I see nothing confusing about the sentence to which you replied (and butchered the grammar of). I ask again, what is it that you don't understand about it?

Benefits to whom? Benefits in what form? Benefits of what kind? What is the 'whole'?

No, that is not what the debate is about. That's what your strawman is about. I won't repeat myself; if you continue to ignore the clarifications that have been posted and choose to cling to your dishonest misrepresentations, there is no conversation to be had. You're essentially talking to yourself, carrying on an argument that only exists within your imagination.

I opened the floor for you to represent the argument in whole in a clear and concise manner. You have not. Therefore I assumed that your "problem" is that people are unable to act without having to bear the cost and consequences of their actions.

The solved problem, the ideal situation, is that where people can act without having to bear the cost and consequences of their actions. This raises additional problems that can't be solved. The problem being that you can't do two or more things at once, therefore you bear the opportunity cost, the natural interest rate, when you make a choice to act. Ergo, your ideal situation is not feasible in reality.

The only possible clarification you have made is that people may do things they particularly don't want to do.

I say again, if you find my comprehension of your argument lacking, resubmit your thesis in a clear and concise manner.

Why do you ask questions if you have already decided the answer? "No" is incorrect. I don't know where you got this idea that Philosophyking and his ilk advocate contributing nothing to society (even after he corrected you and explicitly said the opposite). Perhaps you interpreted the phrase "practical and profitable" too literally. I'm sure the point there was that prosperity can be measured in ways other than dollars in an account and the number of widgets that the factory pumped out this month.

The 'no' was in reference in clarifying the classification of a parasite in this conversation.

Prosperity can't be measured in terms of dollars nor can it be measured in terms of physical capital or production capacity. Relatively speaking, you could use such things as a proxy to make an argument that A is more wealthy than B. Or use of a temporal comparison. Going back to the fundamentals of economics, the level of one's or society's prosperity is one's or its ability to fulfill one's or its desires. What ever wants or needs that society and time schedule society is the creation of subjective value judgements of individuals. There is no objective measure. Ergo, it can't be measured directly. Most proxy measures are poor at best.

How do we know that someone values something? Their actions. For action in this manner to take place there is a prior choice involved. Now, if their anticipated benefits of action are realized, they have profited. The same exact concept is applied to a market economy with the division of labour and use of money. If someone combines the factors of production, puts a good or service to market and realizes his costs are less than his income, he makes a profit. This profit tells us that others valued the goods or service he brought to market and in turn his actions. If he made a loss, this tells us that the factors of production could have been better used in fulfilling other desires that society has.

If someone specializes in a vocation when no rent can be borne, obviously society does not value that vocation. The particular person is left with the burden of the cost of the investment.

Hah of course, the old "let's see you do better" argument.

What on earth are you going on about?

No, one doesn't need a solution in order to recognize a problem, and pointing out that a solution is lacking doesn't count as a valid argument against the criticism.

If your supposed problem only exists in the realm of mental masturbation, I need not be concerned with the ramifications of any possible solution because you won't act. Since I need not be concerned, this particular conversation is over.

Let's start a new conversation. I want to understand you.

Proposed Question: Why do you not want to bear the costs and consequences of your decision? Is this some sort of relic from the education system?

 

[pernoctator]

Benefits to whom? Benefits in what form? Benefits of what kind? What is the 'whole'?

As opposed to the individual. Others. The "community". I don't know what other possible meanings you think "the whole" could have had in this context. The benefits are myriad. Are you denying that they exist? Do you truly believe that everything you benefit from in life is a direct result of the sweat and tears you have personally expended?

I opened the floor for you to represent the argument in whole in a clear and concise manner. You have not.

Both I and Philosophyking have repeatedly exposed your misrepresentation and explained the point. The real issue seems to be your desire to continue debating despite the fact that you have no interest in the actual point, and so you build strawmen to keep yourself occupied.

If your supposed problem only exists in the realm of mental masturbation, [highlight]I need not be concerned with the ramifications of any possible solution[/highlight] because you won't act. Since I need not be concerned, this particular conversation is over.

Why should you be? It makes more sense to be concerned with the ramifications that exist now precisely because of the lack of a solution. You can of course choose to be apathetic, but there is no need for your hostile and judgemental attitude towards those who aren't.

Let's start a new conversation. I want to understand you.

Proposed Question: Why do you not want to bear the costs and consequences of your decision? Is this some sort of relic from the education system?

Let me fix that for you:

Proposed Loaded Question:

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

As opposed to the individual. Others. The "community". I don't know what other possible meanings you think "the whole" could have had in this context. The benefits are myriad. Are you denying that they exist? Do you truly believe that everything you benefit from in life is a direct result of the sweat and tears you have personally expended?

I indirectly benefit from the division of labour. That is the reason why I live in a society.

Both I and Philosophyking have repeatedly exposed your misrepresentation and explained the point. The real issue seems to be your desire to continue debating despite the fact that you have no interest in the actual point, and so you build strawmen to keep yourself occupied.

Forgive my ignorance, please refer me to where you have done so.

I have read some supposed clarifications which basically amounted to some people do things that they don't particularly want to do. Well, that is simply a truism. A fact. Does not mean anything in itself.

Why should you be? It makes more sense to be concerned with the ramifications that exist now precisely because of the lack of a solution. You can of course choose to be apathetic, but there is no need for your hostile and judgemental attitude towards those who aren't.

People advocate things without first understanding the ramifications of what they're advocating. Example: Some people out there wish to eliminate money for what ever reason. This would results in the destruction of the market's price determination mechanism and hence result in resources no longer being rationally allocated in society. This would have disastrous consequences. Starvation en mass. I don't think this would be a desirable state of affairs. Point: Ramifications matter.

If you try and attempt to institute a situation whereby people can act without bearing in mind the consequences, someone else is going to have to bear the burden. Not only does someone else have to bear the burden, intervening in the economy will always cause the allocations of resources to be such that they are not used to satisfy the the most urgent needs/wants of society.

Question: At what cost? Both explicit and underlying.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't know where you got this idea that Philosophyking and his ilk advocate contributing nothing to society (even after he corrected you and explicitly said the opposite). Perhaps you interpreted the phrase "practical and profitable" too literally. I'm sure the point there was that prosperity can be measured in ways other than dollars in an account and the number of widgets that the factory pumped out this month.

Indeed. He has constructed (for whatever reason) a quite convenient straw man with which he has rather easily dispensed. Yet nothing of true substance has been truly gained or accomplished beyond mere appearance.

And clearly, my use of the words "practical" and "profitable" did not imply that I am against the very notion of social contribution. What I am against is the modern materialistic, consumeristic obsession with merely practical, profitable, useful labor which bears an immediate social utility (as opposed to those social goods, such as philosophy, art, and poetry, which albeit somewhat less immediately useful, unquestionably are an important aspect of culture).

Obviously, it's likely that if one first presumes the notion that only practical/profitable labor is a true form of "social contribution," one will clearly then interpret my words in such a fashion that I appear to be against "giving" altogether. Yet such an unnecessary, and rather short-sighted, conviction/definition only obscures the matter altogether. Essentially then, if to be against "mere practicality" (as I am) is to be against "social contribution," then it would clearly logically follow that many poets, philosophers, and artists (who are largely interested in intrinsic values) are mere "parasites" who wish not to work, but merely to leech from the rest of society. And clearly, this is a ridiculous conclusion that follows from such a narrow view of what it truly means to "contribute" through labor.

Many poets, philosophers, and artists clearly provide society with many somewhat less tangible, more intrinsic goods that, in some fashion or another, potentially contribute to our very notion of culture. Thus, while these goods are not always nearly as "profitable" and "useful" as the more practical forms of labor, it would be illogical to conflate the a) creative labor it takes to produce them with b) a state of pure inactivity and absolute lack of production. And so, it's perhaps because of an unnecessary conviction, in an unnecessarily narrow definition of what it means to "contribute" to society, that my words have been horribly misconstrued to mean that I - illogical as it is to think - am an advocate of mere leisure and indolence (which I clearly am not).

But yeah, rather than noting potential problems with the current way of things, I suppose I'm only really saying that lazy people should just get paid for nothing....... >.<

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@Philosophyking87

Indeed. He has constructed (for whatever reason) a quite convenient straw man with which he has rather easily dispensed. Yet nothing of true substance has been truly gained or accomplished beyond mere appearance.

If you think I have incorrectly perceived your argument or what ever the hell you're talking about, resubmit your thesis in a concise and ostensible manner. The floor is now open to you.

 

[pernoctator]

Forgive my ignorance, please refer me to where you have done so.

In almost all of my posts, especially the first. See also: Philosophyking's posts on page 2.

If you think I have incorrectly perceived your argument or what ever the hell you're talking about, resubmit your thesis in a concise and ostensible manner. The floor is now open to you.

You can't attribute all the responsibility to us for not explaining ourselves up to your standards. When someone clearly says your assumptions are wrong, as in "You did not properly read my posts if you think this is the case" (post #73), the proper response is not to carry on arguing as though it is the case. That only wastes everyone's time, and I don't see what purpose you could have in doing so other than to fool casual readers into thinking you have a strong case by distorting the topic.

People advocate things without first understanding the ramifications of what they're advocating. Example: Some people out there wish to eliminate money for what ever reason. This would results in the destruction of the market's price determination mechanism and hence result in resources no longer being rationally allocated in society. This would have disastrous consequences. Starvation en mass. I don't think this would be a desirable state of affairs. Point: Ramifications matter.

If you try and attempt to institute a situation whereby people can act without bearing in mind the consequences, someone else is going to have to bear the burden. Not only does someone else have to bear the burden, intervening in the economy will always cause the allocations of resources to be such that they are not used to satisfy the the most urgent needs/wants of society.

Question: At what cost? Both explicit and underlying.

The entire above rant is based on this mistake: equating the advocating of a better system with the advocating of specific logistics involved in transforming a current system into it. Saying the world would be better without money is an entirely different topic than discussing a plan to remove money from a thousands-year-old money-based system. You are ignoring the pure concept of "would a world without money be a better world?" just as you've been ignoring PK's point. Nobody said fixing the problem would be easy.

Also, this:

a situation whereby people can act without bearing in mind the consequences

...is, for the umpteenth time, a strawman. It is not the situation being advocated.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This paragraph seems to outline the problem.

The notion of "sufficiently dignified work" does not at all have anything to do with being a "burden" on others. What we are speaking of here is potential "progress" in how we go about allocating jobs and managing/utilizing labor. The problem is that most people are simply bogged down by the anti-egalitarian, anti-progressive ideologies (such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, general conservatism, and libertarianism, not to mention the many arguments made by Milton Friedman, not all of which are philosophically sound - as John Rawls made fairly clear).

And this paragraph:

On the contrary, the discussion did include, to a great extent, whether or not people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits. BigApplePie clearly noted his awareness of this when he said, "Sure jobs and worker can be mismatched," in response to my statement, "This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people."

You guys speak in a strange language, mentioning terms that I have not encountered before like 'social contribution' and 'social utility', so let me see if I can analyse this.

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

Ok; for what reasons do you think this problem exists? Define what is dignified work.

Wait, shit, fuck; it seems like here Philosophyking is alluding to possibly solving the problem:

potential "progress" in how we go about allocating jobs and managing/utilizing labor.

How do you want to go about solving this problem?

Here is the interesting thing I don't quite understand: If your (plural) arguments are not about shifting the costs of another existence onto other people, why in god's name is Philosophyking87 mentioning people being bogged down by anti-egalitarian ideologies? Obviously he wants to institute egalitarian policies to solve the supposed problem. The nature of egalitarian policies are such that you burden people with the costs of other people's existence and actions. Ergo, I did not construct a strawman argument.

 

[pernoctator]

it seems like here Philosophyking is alluding to possibly solving the problem:


How do you want to go about solving this problem?

Of course he desires progress; why wouldn't he? It's a natural side-effect of recognizing a problem. But again you make the mistake of concluding that there must be a plan attached. Voicing an issue does not give someone the responsibility of solving it.

Here is the interesting thing I don't quite understand: If your (plural) arguments are not about shifting the costs of another existence onto other people, why in god's name is Philosophyking87 mentioning people being bogged down by anti-egalitarian ideologies? Obviously he wants to institute egalitarian policies to solve the supposed problem. The nature of egalitarian policies are such that you burden people with the costs of other people's existence and actions. Ergo, I did not construct a strawman argument.

You're looking at egalitarian as "equal cost for unequal things" instead of "equal worth". Ironically, taking an anti-egalitarian attitude toward defining egalitarianism... proving PK's point.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Are you not going to argue the reasons why you guys see the following as problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

Define what is dignified work.

When I was saving money to pay for my education, one of my tasks for a job I had was to clean the factory's toilets. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

Another job I had was a data base manager. This work involved programming, error fining and improving usability. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

For one job I was laboring twelve hours a day in 50 degrees Celsius heat. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

Please enlighten me.

Of course he desires progress; why wouldn't he? It's a natural side-effect of recognizing a problem. But again you make the mistake of concluding that there must be a plan attached. Voicing an issue does not give someone the responsibility of solving it.

Well thank god for that. For a moment there I thought you guys were going venture out of the realm of postulation to the realm of action. You gave me an awful fright.

You're looking at egalitarian as "equal cost for unequal things" instead of "equal worth". Ironically, taking an anti-egalitarian attitude toward defining egalitarianism... proving PK's point.

I'm understanding egalitarian policies as taking two statistical points of data regarding some classification, outlined by some measure and engaging in some action such to make the difference between two such points of data to equal 0. Egalitarians generally see statistical differences in wealth to be a bad thing in it self. I have no idea why. There is no way to make the statistical difference equal zero without burdening other's with the cost and wealth destroyed.

This " "equal cost for unequal things" instead of "equal worth" " makes absolutely zero sense to me. Write ostensibly. Probably the reason why is that value is subjective.

 

[psion]

It seems like pernoctator and philosophyking are arguing for a hypothetical ideal and are both of the opinion that such ideals do not require an explanation of how to achieve a practical implementation, whereas proxy is asking for such a thing being of the opinion that an ideas validity rests upon its success when applied to real situations (or at least, just in the area of economics). Considering that both sides have drastically different expectations in regard to the validity of their own arguments, this debate will just continue as it has been with both sides misunderstanding or misinterpreting (as the other side sees it) their words.

 

[Philosophyking87]

You can't attribute all the responsibility to us for not explaining ourselves up to your standards. When someone clearly says your assumptions are wrong, as in "You did not properly read my posts if you think this is the case" (post #73), the proper response is not to carry on arguing as though it is the case. That only wastes everyone's time, and I don't see what purpose you could have in doing so other than to fool casual readers into thinking you have a strong case by distorting the topic.

Agreed.

It seems like pernoctator and philosophyking are arguing for a hypothetical ideal and are both of the opinion that such ideals do not require an explanation of how to achieve a practical implementation, whereas proxy is asking for such a thing being of the opinion that an ideas validity rests upon its success when applied to real situations (or at least, just in the area of economics). Considering that both sides have drastically different expectations in regard to the validity of their own arguments, this debate will just continue as it has been with both sides misunderstanding or misinterpreting (as the other side sees it) their words.

Sounds about right.

 

[pernoctator]

Define what is dignified work.

When I was saving money to pay for my education, one of my tasks for a job I had was to clean the factory's toilets. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

Another job I had was a data base manager. This work involved programming, error fining and improving usability. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

For one job I was laboring twelve hours a day in 50 degrees Celsius heat. Was that dignified and to what standard? At that point in time was the work compatible to my highest skills/talents/traits and to what standard?

Please enlighten me.

Well it depends. All of them are, and none of them are. There are countless people working in jobs that fit them who are happy, yet to some people, like PK87, those jobs are as revolting as the above 3 are to you. Similarly those people would not be as happy in PK87's field.

Well thank god for that. For a moment there I thought you guys were going venture out of the realm of postulation to the realm of action. You gave me an awful fright.

Oh yes, wouldn't that be awful. Almost as frightening as the fact that people who think more like you actually are asserting influence -- people who think "equality" means "standardized testing" and whatnot.

I'm understanding egalitarian policies as taking two statistical points of data regarding some classification, outlined by some measure and engaging in some action such to make the difference between two such points of data to equal 0. Egalitarians generally see statistical differences in wealth to be a bad thing in it self. I have no idea why. There is no way to make the statistical difference equal zero without burdening other's with the cost and wealth destroyed.

This " "equal cost for unequal things" instead of "equal worth" " makes absolutely zero sense to me. Write ostensibly. Probably the reason why is that value is subjective.

To help you understand in those terms, think of it as changing the original values of your points because the method used to determine them was flawed. They don't need to be "equalized" for a cost because they already are. What actually adds "costs" or "burdens" is the fact that we are using the incorrect values. If we put a skilled carpenter in the field of your PhD and put you out in the heat blistering your hands, both of you are pissed and neither are doing their best work. Incorrect distribution of work -- that is the burden on society. Is this making sense to you yet?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Well it depends. All of them are, and none of them are. There are countless people working in jobs that fit them who are happy, yet to some people, like PK87, those jobs are as revolting as the above 3 are to you. Similarly those people would not be as happy in PK87's field.

I'm confused. Is this your great insight? Or is this meant to be some sort of joke. A trolling? I am starting to think that you guys have no reasoning why you believe the aforementioned problems are problems.

Oh yes, wouldn't that be awful. Almost as frightening as the fact that people who think more like you actually are asserting influence -- people who think "equality" means "standardized testing" and whatnot.

'Equality' is a term coined by Classical Liberalism which entailed all are equal before the law. The recognition that no person, for whatever reason, has positive rights. From my understanding, equality does not mean standardized tests.

To help you understand in those terms, think of it as changing the original values of your points because the method used to determine them was flawed. They don't need to be "equalized" for a cost because they already are. What actually adds "costs" or "burdens" is the fact that we are using the incorrect values. If we put a skilled carpenter in the field of your PhD and put you out in the heat blistering your hands, both of you are pissed and neither are doing their best work. Incorrect distribution of work -- that is the burden on society. Is this making sense to you yet?

Let me attempt to interpret this in a more ostensible manner. I think you're stating that the difference between the two points of data is the cost and the burden. Ok, why is the difference between the two points a cost and burden? Who is bearing the cost and burden?

 

[snafupants]

I'm confused. Is this your great insight? Or is this meant to be some sort of joke. A trolling? I am starting to think that you guys have no reasoning why you believe the aforementioned problems are problems.



'Equality' is a term coined by Classical Liberalism which entailed all are equal before the law. The recognition that no person, for whatever reason, has positive rights. From my understanding, equality does not mean standardized tests.



Let me attempt to interpret this in a more ostensible manner. I think you're stating that the difference between the two points of data is the cost and the burden. Ok, why is the difference between the two points a cost and burden? Who is bearing the cost and burden?

False dichotomy? Come on Proxy, we should embrace equality like nature doe...oh wait.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

False dichotomy?

Colloquialism, not a false dichotomy.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Check this out: it's about the philosophy of economics, which is essentially the sort of inquiry I've been dealing with this entire time in this thread.

Spoiler

"What is the role of ethical values in economics?

Economists often portray their science as �value-free�—as a technical analysis of the demands of rationality in the allocation of resources rather than a specific set of value or policy commitments. On this interpretation, the economist wishes to be understood in analogy with the civil engineer rather than the transportation policy maker: he or she can tell us how to build a stable bridge, but not where, when, or why to do so. It is for citizens and policy makers to make the judgments about the public good that are needed in order to decide whether a given road or bridge is socially desirable; it is for the technical specialist to provide design and estimate of costs. This description of the discipline of economics fails in several important respects, however. Economic theory contains a family of substantive presuppositions about the nature of the good—individual and social—that directly influence the policy recommendations to which economic theory gives rise. For example, the assumption of rational egoism is inconsistent with several of the values of communitarianism; the assumption that equity is subordinate to efficiency is inconsistent with an egalitarian political philosophy; and the assumption that a bundle of commodities constitutes individual �wellbeing� is inconsistent with a more Aristotelian conception of the good human life (Nussbaum 2000). So the premises and assumptions of economics are substantially intertwined with normative assumptions about the good human life and the good society. This is not a deficiency, but it needs to be recognized so that we can recognize the workings of the unstated value assumptions. And it certainly invalidates the assumption of �value-free� social science. In general, it seems fair to say that the ethical assumptions that neoclassical economics presupposes fall together into a family of normative ideals that privilege individualism, inequality, and the minimal exercise of public policy.

Is distributive justice a topic for economists?

Once it is recognized that economics has ethical content, it becomes apparent that we need to examine the content of these ethical premises in detail, and offer critique when we find them wanting. In particular, economics is obliged to confront issues of distributive justice much more explicitly than it has to date. A market economy implies some degree of inequality, of various kinds: inequalities of outcomes (wealth and income), inequalities of opportunity, inequalities of power and influence, inequalities of levels of well-being (health, longevity, education). What sorts of inequalities are morally acceptable in a just society? How extensive can inequalities be before they create differences among citizens that interfere with their human dignity and the preconditions of democracy? Throughout the past thirty years philosophers have made substantial contributions to our understanding of these issues of distributive justice and the moral status of inequality; (Rawls 2001), (Nozick 1974), (Elster 1992). There is more to be done."

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia%20entries/Philosophy%20of%20Economics.htm

Ultimately, Proxy seems to be more of the "value-free" ontological view of economics, whereas some of the rest of us seem to take the view that economics, in being a social science, naturally involves values, and therefore, room for ethical consideration.

Here's a few interesting resources about the field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_economics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/

So while I do not at all undermine Proxy's likely sufficient understanding of economics (in terms of the ins and outs of resource/good allocation), I cannot agree that economics is some ethical-free science which should go about the business of understanding distribution and allocation in a completely detached manner which seems to ignore the fact that the entire purpose or point of economics is to better understand and more efficiently (and perhaps ethically) engage in resource/good allocation, rather than simply focus on efficiency, without paying due attention to the fact that the very fulfillment of human needs is essentially the purpose of economic activity/science, and that economics is therefore inherently tied to the very life and well-being of the humans directly and indirectly involved in such activity. Thus, what one knows of the many "hows" of economics does not necessarily say anything about the many "whys" and "should" that may be relevant.

Thus, I have simply offered some philosophical points as to where I believe ethical consideration is lacking in many areas of the modern process of economics (the way things are currently done), not to mention those institutions and areas of society which are largely interconnected with and/or affected by it, with education and the "labor force" (job allocation, working conditions, etc.) being great examples.

Certainly, if someone views economics not as a true "social science," in terms of taking into account sociological factors related to the very lives of humans themselves, but instead merely as a cold, harder scientific discipline consisting more of finding better ways to improve economic efficiency and the means of achieving greater production (and thus, economic prosperity), then it's unlikely such a person would truly see such social/philosophical analysis as truly relevant or warranted, as it would seem to fall outside of what economics is truly about.

Thus, I truly do invite those of you out there who are somewhat open to the idea that economics is a social science which should, on some level, work in tandem with other social sciences (such as sociology and psychology, not to mention perhaps philosophy) in order to improve the very lives of as many people naturally involved in economic activity from day to day.

Additionally, as many should already know (and if they do not, then let them hear it first here), GDP (gross domestic product) does not necessarily indicate/measure economic well-being. In other words, the more we produce, the more we have to purchase and the higher our purchasing power, the more goods we have to consume, and the more efficient we are in how we go about meeting all our needs -- all these things (these forms of "economic prosperity") do not necessarily logically indicate that people are better off as a result. For instance, even with a higher GDP, certain external factors might still plague any human society. Think of poor environment. Does the ability to produce more goods indicate anything about the state of the environment? Not necessarily. In fact, it might just be the case that the higher the GDP, the higher the profits gained by companies, which might just be the result of less concern for the environment. In such a case, you'd have tons of problems affecting the health of people: coal plants and mining companies that cause mercury poisoning that affects women and their children, unnecessary miner deaths due to a disregard for basic health and safety regulation, and contaminated water that can lead to fatalities. Then would it be so great to say, "yeah, but GDP is high!"? Clearly not.

A few other examples of how GDP is not necessarily a great indicator of well-being is social inequity: in other words, how income is distributed. Suppose -- as perhaps is true in many areas of the world where GDP is very high -- that some people earn many times more than others, such that while we are collectively doing well in terms of productivity, there are some people who do not benefit as greatly from this, while others do. Would we then suppose it logical so say that GDP has necessarily indicated great well-being for most people? Not really. If political power and wealth (lobbying) are concentrated, it's possible that there will be a great divide between those who truly benefit over those who do not.

Lastly, I want to leave off with a quote from Sen. Robert Kennedy regarding the limitation of viewing economics merely as a science only (and perhaps mindlessly) concerned with increasing GDP:

[Gross domestic product] does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our courage nor our wisdom, nor our devotion to our country. It measure everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Ignoring the unnecessary obsession with "American exceptionalism" and pride and all that sort of nationalistic, patriotic rubbish, I think Kennedy hit the nail on the head. And this is essentially a great expression of what I said earlier (and what Bertrand Russell was saying about the value of philosophy): that practical goods (the "food for the body") is not necessarily all that matters in life (along with the hyper-obsession with science, technical fields, and "trade skills"). These material goods are merely a means of sustenance, for the most part. They should neither rule our waking moment nor fill our every thought. They have their place and that's it. Instead, there are some less practical goods ("food for the mind") that also matters, and much of this very important for cultural reasons. Poetry, philosophy, art, and music; these goods aren't merely "useless"; they're what make, for the most part, life worth living more many people. In order to secure happiness for ourselves, we need not only and merely products and practical goods, but also ideas to share, stories to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and universal human experiences captured by the power of the word, with which to relate and discuss. As such, it's a shame that many people today are so obsessed with higher profits and new "gadgets and "gizmos," as George Carlin said, that they are beginning to lose sight of what really matters in life. And this is potentially having a big impact on those people who still value that which is not easily packaged and shipped in a nice, pretty box by UPS or FedEx at any given moment.

And despite potential ramifications (which I think are merely more unfounded fears somewhat tied to a rather inflexible economic/political ideology, as opposed to the actual nitty-gritty details of particular economic processes), I do think just as people were once utterly subject to the very whims of men wearing crowns, who abused their power and made mere slaves of everyone else, whereas we have now learned that people deserve a basic amount of dignified treatment (i.e., political rights), that people should also bear a basic amount of respect and dignity when it comes to how they go about utilizing their labor for cooperative social benefits (i.e. labor rights, worker rights, or economic rights). This means no taking a boss' bullshit, simply because he "owns" the factory, or the company. This means not being subject to wage-slave dilemmas, where one has no real options as a human being in a system which should serve everyone sufficiently or no one at all (i.e., mutually beneficial). This means having perhaps a basic income and thus, the freedom to actually make basic choices in any free society. It's not unthinkable and it is very possible; it's merely hampered by those who tell us that to have such things is "unjustified" (because we somehow will step on each other's "ultimate liberties to live in a system of relative chaos and very little harmony"). But it's just plain wrong.

The simple truth of the matter is that our social sciences are still very young, with many discoveries and insights reached all the time. We are growing in our limited understanding of how our economic activity truly affects people living in social communities. Thus, it's utterly narrow-minded and arrogant to believe we have it all figured out. On the contrary, we've much things to learn and thus plenty of room to grow, improve, and progress as social animals.

A few interesting related resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sociology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Ok, I will deal with this one quickly before I got to work in 10 minutes.

Check this out: it's about the philosophy of economics, which is essentially the sort of inquiry I've been dealing with this entire time in this thread.

Incorrect. You have been dealing with a person that does not understand the reasoning why behind why you think the aforementioned problems are problems.

Philosophy of economics? Different schools of economics have different methodologies, if that is what you're inferring.

What is the role of ethical values in economics?

You can use economics to determine the outcome of policies.

Economists often portray their science as �value-free�—as a technical analysis of the demands of rationality in the allocation of resources rather than a specific set of value or policy commitments. On this interpretation, the economist wishes to be understood in analogy with the civil engineer rather than the transportation policy maker: he or she can tell us how to build a stable bridge, but not where, when, or why to do so. It is for citizens and policy makers to make the judgments about the public good that are needed in order to decide whether a given road or bridge is socially desirable; it is for the technical specialist to provide design and estimate of costs.

An 'ok' understanding.

This description of the discipline of economics fails in several important respects, however. Economic theory contains a family of substantive presuppositions about the nature of the good—individual and social—that directly influence the policy recommendations to which economic theory gives rise. For example, the assumption of rational egoism is inconsistent with several of the values of communitarianism; the assumption that equity is subordinate to efficiency is inconsistent with an egalitarian political philosophy; and the assumption that a bundle of commodities constitutes individual �wellbeing� is inconsistent with a more Aristotelian conception of the good human life (Nussbaum 2000). So the premises and assumptions of economics are substantially intertwined with normative assumptions about the good human life and the good society. This is not a deficiency, but it needs to be recognized so that we can recognize the workings of the unstated value assumptions. And it certainly invalidates the assumption of �value-free� social science. In general, it seems fair to say that the ethical assumptions that neoclassical economics presupposes fall together into a family of normative ideals that privilege individualism, inequality, and the minimal exercise of public policy.

Nonsense.

Is distributive justice a topic for economists?

Once it is recognized that economics has ethical content, it becomes apparent that we need to examine the content of these ethical premises in detail, and offer critique when we find them wanting. In particular, economics is obliged to confront issues of distributive justice much more explicitly than it has to date. A market economy implies some degree of inequality, of various kinds: inequalities of outcomes (wealth and income), inequalities of opportunity, inequalities of power and influence, inequalities of levels of well-being (health, longevity, education). What sorts of inequalities are morally acceptable in a just society? How extensive can inequalities be before they create differences among citizens that interfere with their human dignity and the preconditions of democracy? Throughout the past thirty years philosophers have made substantial contributions to our understanding of these issues of distributive justice and the moral status of inequality; (Rawls 2001), (Nozick 1974), (Elster 1992). There is more to be done."[/spoiler]

I have no idea what 'distributed justice' is. The above is nonsense.

Hahahah. Ohh man that sounds bad. I love it.

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia%20entries/Philosophy%20of%20Economics.htm

Ultimately, Proxy seems to be more of the "value-free" ontological view of economics, whereas some of the rest of us seem to take the view that economics, in being a social science, naturally involves values, and therefore, room for ethical consideration.

I do take economics as being value free and it being a social science. There is no doubt it is a social science.

Here's a few interesting resources about the field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_economics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/

So while I do not at all undermine Proxy's likely sufficient understanding of economics (in terms of the ins and outs of resource/good allocation), I cannot agree that economics is some ethical-free science which should go about the business of understanding distribution and allocation in a completely detached manner which seems to ignore the fact that the entire purpose or point of economics is to better understand and more efficiently (and perhaps ethically) engage in resource/good allocation, rather than simply focus on efficiency, without paying due attention to the fact that the very fulfillment of human needs is essentially the purpose of economic activity/science, and that economics is therefore inherently tied to the very life and well-being of the humans directly and indirectly involved in such activity. Thus, what one knows of the many "hows" of economics does not necessarily say anything about the many "whys" and "should" that may be relevant.

The primary task of economics is to determine how an unhampered economy operates and to understand how policies will change how resources are allocated in society. Anything not of the above, is not a task under economics.

Thus, I have simply offered some philosophical points as to where I believe ethical consideration is lacking in many areas of the modern process of economics (the way things are currently done), not to mention those institutions and areas of society which are largely interconnected with and/or affected by it, with education and the "labor force" (job allocation, working conditions, etc.) being great examples.

To analogies; say you wanted to involve ethical considerations into mathematics. It simply does not make sense.

You can use the knowledge produced by economics to analyse such things as you have mentioned above. Involving ethical considerations into economics? It does not make sense. All it would achieve would be the perversion of analysis.

Certainly, if someone views economics not as a true "social science," in terms of taking into account sociological factors related to the very lives of humans themselves, but instead merely as a cold, harder scientific discipline consisting more of finding better ways to improve economic efficiency and the means of achieving greater production (and thus, economic prosperity), then it's unlikely such a person would truly see such social/philosophical analysis as truly relevant or warranted, as it would seem to fall outside of what economics is truly about.

You can use economics to determine the best means to attain your desired ends. Obviously, if your means won't bring about the desired end, you're going to have a problem.

Thus, I truly do invite those of you out there who are somewhat open to the idea that economics is a social science which should, on some level, work in tandem with other social sciences (such as sociology and psychology, not to mention perhaps philosophy) in order to improve the very lives of as many people naturally involved in economic activity from day to day.

Do you take social science as being inherently intertwined with appeals to normative statements?

Additionally, as many should already know (and if they do not, then let them hear it first here), GDP (gross domestic product) does not necessarily indicate/measure economic well-being. In other words, the more we produce, the more we have to purchase and the higher our purchasing power, the more goods we have to consume, and the more efficient we are in how we go about meeting all our needs -- all these things (these forms of "economic prosperity") do not necessarily logically indicate that people are better off as a result. For instance, even with a higher GDP, certain external factors might still plague any human society. Think of poor environment. Does the ability to produce more goods indicate anything about the state of the environment? Not necessarily. In fact, it might just be the case that the higher the GDP, the higher the profits gained by companies, which might just be the result of less concern for the environment. In such a case, you'd have tons of problems affecting the health of people: coal plants and mining companies that cause mercury poisoning that affects women and their children, unnecessary miner deaths due to a disregard for basic health and safety regulation, and contaminated water that can lead to fatalities. Then would it be so great to say, "yeah, but GDP is high!"? Clearly not.

A few other examples of how GDP is not necessarily a great indicator of well-being is social inequity: in other words, how income is distributed. Suppose -- as perhaps is true in many areas of the world where GDP is very high -- that some people earn many times more than others, such that while we are collectively doing well in terms of productivity, there are some people who do not benefit as greatly from this, while others do. Would we then suppose it logical so say that GDP has necessarily indicated great well-being for most people? Not really. If political power and wealth (lobbying) are concentrated, it's possible that there will be a great divide between those who truly benefit over those who do not.

GDPdoes not provide any useful information apart from a proxy to determine stability of the monetary system.

Lastly, I want to leave off with a quote from Sen. Robert Kennedy regarding the limitation of viewing economics merely as a science only (and perhaps mindlessly) concerned with increasing GDP:



Ignoring the unnecessary obsession with "American exceptionalism" and pride and all that sort of nationalistic, patriotic rubbish, I think Kennedy hit the nail on the head. And this is essentially a great expression of what I said earlier (and what Bertrand Russell was saying about the value of philosophy): that practical goods (the "food for the body") is not necessarily all that matters in life (along with the hyper-obsession with science, technical fields, and "trade skills"). These material goods are merely a means of sustenance, for the most part. They should neither rule our waking moment nor fill our every thought. They have their place and that's it. Instead, there are some less practical goods ("food for the mind") that also matters, and much of this very important for cultural reasons. Poetry, philosophy, art, and music; these goods aren't merely "useless"; they're what make, for the most part, life worth living more many people. In order to secure happiness for ourselves, we need not only and merely products and practical goods, but also ideas to share, stories to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and universal human experiences captured by the power of the word, with which to relate and discuss. As such, it's a shame that many people today are so obsessed with higher profits and new "gadgets and "gizmos," as George Carlin said, that they are beginning to lose sight of what really matters in life. And this is potentially having a big impact on those people who still value that which is not easily packaged and shipped in a nice, pretty box by UPS or FedEx at any given moment.

I am not one to comment on what people value. Though, to underplay the role that technology has played to improve the quality of our lives is dubious. What the hell would we be doing without the net? What would happen to all the free books I read??!!!??

And despite potential ramifications (which I think are merely more unfounded fears somewhat tied to a rather inflexible economic/political ideology, as opposed to the actual nitty-gritty details of particular economic processes), I do think just as people were once utterly subject to the very whims of men wearing crowns, who abused their power and made mere slaves of everyone else, whereas we have now learned that people deserve a basic amount of dignified treatment (i.e., political rights), that people should also bear a basic amount of respect and dignity when it comes to how they go about utilizing their labor for cooperative social benefits (i.e. labor rights, worker rights, or economic rights). This means no taking a boss' bullshit, simply because he "owns" the factory, or the company. This means not being subject to wage-slave dilemmas, where one has no real options as a human being in a system which should serve everyone sufficiently or no one at all (i.e., mutually beneficial). This means having perhaps a basic income and thus, the freedom to actually make basic choices in any free society. It's not unthinkable and it is very possible; it's merely hampered by those who tell us that to have such things is "unjustified" (because we somehow will step on each other's "ultimate liberties to live in a system of relative chaos and very little harmony"). But it's just plain wrong.

My thoughts on this are best summed up by "errrrrrhhhhhhhhgghh...."

The simple truth of the matter is that our social sciences are still very young, with many discoveries and insights reached all the time. We are growing in our limited understanding of how our economic activity truly affects people living in social communities. Thus, it's utterly narrow-minded and arrogant to believe we have it all figured out. On the contrary, we've much things to learn and thus plenty of room to grow, improve, and progress as social animals.

A few interesting related resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sociology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics

Keep social science value free. Thank you.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Can someone please explain to me the reason why the problems below are problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

 

[ElvenVeil]

This is a funny thread .. I like to stalk, though sometimes one must step out of the shadows

I don't get why you would wish to pool the different branches of social sciences into one.. As in, I don't understand why economics should add value to distribution of goods, production or how the dignified human feels about certain working hours or similar stuff.. These kind of questions are left for the idealists and politicians, and should not be a part of economics.. Simply because it is does not seem relevant within the field.. Economics, in my opinion, should concern itself with the mechanisms of society, and aim to understand them as much as possible, from an empirical perspective, not idealistic. Economics should aim to describe market mechanics.

'In order to secure happiness for ourselves, we need not only and merely products and practical goods, but also ideas to share, stories to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and universal human experiences captured by the power of the word, with which to relate and discuss. As such, it's a shame that many people today are so obsessed with higher profits and new "gadgets and "gizmos," as George Carlin said, that they are beginning to lose sight of what really matters in life'

Social science will always have some element of personal values, I believe, but it certainly should not be the aim the of science.. To understand should be the aim, and so facts and data should come first and foremost; how you understand the data is a matter of personal perspective however.. .. But what you argue for, PK, seems to be that feelings on the matter should be in the forefront...

That it is sad that people have 'lost their way' and care too much for profit and too little for art..Why is it the scientists role to tell people what they should like the most, and then (as far as I can read from your view on economics) economics must just try and fit under your personal view on how the world works... What made science so pretty in the first place was that we moved away from just viewing the world with our feelings/opinions and approached it with data and facts..

So in my opinion you are talking about what society should look like, and that is just not the role of scientists.. It might be the role of philosophers, politicians and idealists, and I don't think those should be mixed together.

So in short: Social sciences goal should be to understand the mechanisms of the social world. (this is my view on science at least)

 

[Agent Intellect]

Can someone please explain to me the reason why the problems below are problems?

Because I want to get paid for tasting delicious cookies but I'm not and it's unfair.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Ok, I will deal with this one quickly before I got to work in 10 minutes.....

Thus, I truly do invite those of you out there who are somewhat open to the idea that economics is a social science which should, on some level, work in tandem with other social sciences (such as sociology and psychology, not to mention perhaps philosophy) in order to improve the very lives of as many people naturally involved in economic activity from day to day.

As this reads, it should be fairly clear that I am open to "open-minded" discussion concerning the social impact of economics. Minds open enough to a) think differently and b) not presume answers to the very issues prior to actual analysis.

Moreover, I think the first linked article explains quite well why it might be more prudent to avoid the view of economics as a completely value-free discipline which shouldn't really concern itself with the knowledge gained by the other social sciences. As it reads:

Economists often portray their science as value-free... This description of the discipline of economics fails in several important respects, however. Economic theory contains a family of substantive presuppositions about the nature of the good—individual and social—that directly influence the policy recommendations to which economic theory gives rise... In general, it seems fair to say that the ethical assumptions that neoclassical economics presupposes fall together into a family of normative ideals that privilege individualism, inequality, and the minimal exercise of public policy.

As I said, it's the very ethical foundation, the anti-egalitarian, conservative ideologies that preach pure, hyper individualism, that prevent most economists from engaging in purely impartial, objective analysis as to the social implications of economic activity and the policies they help create.

As such, as Nietzsche wrote, "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."

What I mean here is that I continue to keep this line of thinking open for those who are worthy/capable of doing so honestly and openly. If you aren't going to remove your rather inflexible presuppositions from your mind prior to dealing with this matter, you're just going to have to continue to engage in a dialogue all by yourself (as you largely have been).

I see no point in discussing this matter with someone largely closed off in the very first place to particular ideas. It's like trying to openly discuss sociology with a racial bigot.

So until then, let the solo act carry on.
You achieve nothing in unsuccessfully attacking the same problem the same ways without change or adaptation.

Two quote from Einstein come to mind:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Incessantly screaming "abortion is murder" won't make it so, and no one will ever listen to you if that's all you ever say in response to any abortion discussion. It's incredibly anti-philosophical. Think outside the box; question your own assumptions from time to time. It'll do you a lot of good.

Keep social science value free. Thank you.

As with cultural anthropology, "value-free" study isn't always the best answer. What does it potentially lead to? Strong cultural relativism, whereby we believe that if another culture is barbarically brutalizing its members, that social scientists should do nothing, only impersonally observe and describe the behavior. As a result of The Holocaust (among other very horrible cultural atrocities), many anthropologists now adopt a weak form of cultural relativism, whereby we try our best to describe and study various cultures as objectively as possible, without the blurring of our own personal values (ethnocentrism). Yet many maintain that in the case of extremely questionable behavior, objective study should have its limits.

As I see it, the same can be said of economics. There is a point up to which it's ideal to keep values out of the study, to keep the analysis somewhat detached from the activity, to try to lead policies in a way which is free of value-bias. However, in the face of growing social problems (likely due to the nature of excessively individualism-based economic activity itself), I think there comes a time, as with cultural anthropology, where completely objective, detached study becomes not an ideal but instead a deleterious problem that perhaps contributes to various social woes. Learning to increase economic efficiency in a vacuum, such that policies can be created that increase the overall productivity of any society -- as with chemistry/physics and the problem we now face with the advent of nuclear weapons -- can lead to horrible conditions in which some people are inadvertently harmed, or outright exploited by those in powerful positions. With any study, there should be some thought given to what sort of role it plays in the grand scheme of things. As it stands, economists seem to rarely ever do this, and it's a real shame.

Go watch Inside Job; see what I mean.

 

[crippli]

Can someone please explain to me the reason why the problems below are problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

I am not sure if I am close to the issue. I thought at once about prostitution when I read the quote. Work in the form of exchanging your services in the form of offering your body for money. Not sexually. But principally the same. Exactly why this isn't dignified someone else need to answer. Religiously an apt metaphor could be that you sell your soul to the devil. That's a sin.

I presume a dignified position would be payed what you are worth. And the problem could be a lack of equilibrium. In my limited understanding. Human economy doesn't tend to follow universal laws. That's why a lot of wealth can end up with one person. While in the cosmos a person will have limited options for growth. You can double your weight, but it will be unhealthy so a price is to be paid.

What I find wondrous is the power something as non rational as economy can gain on people. Perhaps it's an evolution of religion. I tend to find the fashion industry often fluffy. But compared to bankers, their like kids, and haven't even grasped what fluff really is.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I presume a dignified position would be payed what you are worth. And the problem could be a lack of equilibrium.

I will not waste any more time trying to explain what I meant, unless of course someone enters the discussion worthy of further articulation. But I just want to say that this is a very good guess. It's in the general ballpark.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

As this reads, it should be fairly clear that I am open to "open-minded" discussion concerning the social impact of economics. Minds open enough to a) think differently and b) not presume answers to the very issues prior to actual analysis.

The social impact of economics? What on earth are you talking about?

Shall we consider the social impact of mathematics, engineering, carpentry, dogs, cats, gold fish, pseudomonas, etc.? What about the social impact of moons? Social impact of rocks?

...and b) not presume answers to the very issues prior to actual analysis.

No field of inquiry does this unless you intertwine the inquiry with appeals to normative statements.

Moreover, I think the first linked article explains quite well why it might be more prudent to avoid the view of economics as a completely value-free discipline which shouldn't really concern itself with the knowledge gained by the other social sciences. As it reads:

Economists often portray their science as value-free... This description of the discipline of economics fails in several important respects, however. Economic theory contains a family of substantive presuppositions about the nature of the good—individual and social—that directly influence the policy recommendations to which economic theory gives rise... In general, it seems fair to say that the ethical assumptions that neoclassical economics presupposes fall together into a family of normative ideals that privilege individualism, inequality, and the minimal exercise of public policy.

Neoclassical economics does not presuppose anything. It is a school of economics which has a certain methodology by which it conducts its inquiries under. Those whom use neo-classical economics to underpin policy, generally consisting of the laissez-faire tradition, are neo-liberals.

It just so happens that the study of economics has developed knowledge and understanding of how an unhampered economy operates and has identified what are the conditions for wealth creation. There is near ad-infunitum empirical evidence to substantiate their hypotheses.

As I said, it's the very ethical foundation, the anti-egalitarian, conservative ideologies that preach pure, hyper individualism, that prevent most economists from engaging in purely impartial, objective analysis as to the social implications of economic activity and the policies they help create.

What the bloody hell are you going on about?

As such, as Nietzsche wrote, "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."

What I mean here is that I continue to keep this line of thinking open for those who are worthy/capable of doing so honestly and openly. If you aren't going to remove your rather inflexible presuppositions from your mind prior to dealing with this matter, you're just going to have to continue to engage in a dialogue all by yourself (as you largely have been).

I see no point in discussing this matter with someone largely closed off in the very first place to particular ideas. It's like trying to openly discuss sociology with a racial bigot.

So until then, let the solo act carry on.
You achieve nothing in unsuccessfully attacking the same problem the same ways without change or adaptation.

Incessantly screaming "abortion is murder" won't make it so, and no one will ever listen to you if that's all you ever say in response to any abortion discussion. It's incredibly anti-philosophical. Think outside the box; question your own assumptions from time to time. It'll do you a lot of good.

You have not put forward any intelligible arguments.

There are two aforementioned problems and you have provided no reasoning why they are problems.

As with cultural anthropology, "value-free" study isn't always the best answer. What does it potentially lead to? Strong cultural relativism, whereby we believe that if another culture is barbarically brutalizing its members, that social scientists should do nothing, only impersonally observe and describe the behavior. As a result of The Holocaust (among other very horrible cultural atrocities), many anthropologists now adopt a weak form of cultural relativism, whereby we try our best to describe and study various cultures as objectively as possible, without the blurring of our own personal values (ethnocentrism). Yet many maintain that in the case of extremely questionable behavior, objective study should have its limits.

Do people not have their own cognitive faculties in order to make their own judgements about what is right and wrong? Using inductive reasoning, from all the points of data I have collected, it would appear that people do. If people have the ability to make their own judgements, why would you need to appeal to values when undertaking such analyses. The anthropologist passing judgement is unnecessary. Anthropology should tell us who they are, what they believed and why they believed it.

As I see it, the same can be said of economics. There is a point up to which it's ideal to keep values out of the study, to keep the analysis somewhat detached from the activity, to try to lead policies in a way which is free of value-bias.

However, in the face of growing social problems (likely due to the nature of excessively individualism-based economic activity itself),

Huh?

I think there comes a time, as with cultural anthropology, where completely objective, detached study becomes not an ideal but instead a deleterious problem that perhaps contributes to various social woes. Learning to increase economic efficiency in a vacuum, such that policies can be created that increase the overall productivity of any society -- as with chemistry/physics and the problem we now face with the advent of nuclear weapons -- can lead to horrible conditions in which some people are inadvertently harmed, or outright exploited by those in powerful positions. With any study, there should be some thought given to what sort of role it plays in the grand scheme of things. As it stands, economists seem to rarely ever do this, and it's a real shame.

I think we have gathered by now that you are able to write. It appears to me that what you write is devoid of sense or meaning.

Go watch Inside Job; see what I mean.

I supposed I will take a gander.

---

My ability to comprehend you is very limited. This is because you state things which don't correspond to reality and you use strange terminology which is not defined. My perception is that you speak gibberish; utterances of nonsense; unintelligible ramble.

I am going to make the suggestion to you which I give to most people. You should probably study the topic you are wanting to converse before conversing. It will avoid such situations in the future.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I am not sure if I am close to the issue. I thought at once about prostitution when I read the quote. Work in the form of exchanging your services in the form of offering your body for money. Not sexually. But principally the same. Exactly why this isn't dignified someone else need to answer. Religiously an apt metaphor could be that you sell your soul to the devil. That's a sin.

Participation in the division of labour is by its very nature undignified? Ok; why? What standard was used to determine this?

I presume a dignified position would be payed what you are worth. And the problem could be a lack of equilibrium.

How do you determine worth?

What do you mean by the term 'equilibrium'?

In my limited understanding. Human economy doesn't tend to follow universal laws. That's why a lot of wealth can end up with one person. While in the cosmos a person will have limited options for growth. You can double your weight, but it will be unhealthy so a price is to be paid.

This makes no sense.

What I find wondrous is the power something as non rational as economy can gain on people. Perhaps it's an evolution of religion. I tend to find the fashion industry often fluffy. But compared to bankers, their like kids, and haven't even grasped what fluff really is.

This makes no sense.

Thank you for your effort but you leave me with more question that you sought to answer.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This is a funny thread .. I like to stalk, though sometimes one must step out of the shadows

I don't get why you would wish to pool the different branches of social sciences into one.. As in, I don't understand why economics should add value to distribution of goods, production or how the dignified human feels about certain working hours or similar stuff.. These kind of questions are left for the idealists and politicians, and should not be a part of economics.. Simply because it is does not seem relevant within the field.. Economics, in my opinion, should concern itself with the mechanisms of society, and aim to understand them as much as possible, from an empirical perspective, not idealistic. Economics should aim to describe market mechanics.

'In order to secure happiness for ourselves, we need not only and merely products and practical goods, but also ideas to share, stories to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and universal human experiences captured by the power of the word, with which to relate and discuss. As such, it's a shame that many people today are so obsessed with higher profits and new "gadgets and "gizmos," as George Carlin said, that they are beginning to lose sight of what really matters in life'

Social science will always have some element of personal values, I believe, but it certainly should not be the aim the of science.. To understand should be the aim, and so facts and data should come first and foremost; how you understand the data is a matter of personal perspective however.. .. But what you argue for, PK, seems to be that feelings on the matter should be in the forefront...

That it is sad that people have 'lost their way' and care too much for profit and too little for art..Why is it the scientists role to tell people what they should like the most, and then (as far as I can read from your view on economics) economics must just try and fit under your personal view on how the world works... What made science so pretty in the first place was that we moved away from just viewing the world with our feelings/opinions and approached it with data and facts..

So in my opinion you are talking about what society should look like, and that is just not the role of scientists.. It might be the role of philosophers, politicians and idealists, and I don't think those should be mixed together.

So in short: Social sciences goal should be to understand the mechanisms of the social world. (this is my view on science at least)

Finally, someone who speaks English. Your arguments are sound. I agree with you. I must state, it is not my place to make judgements on whether someone cares to much for profit.

 

[pernoctator]

I think we have gathered by now that you are able to write. It appears to me that what you write is devoid of sense or meaning.

I think this applies more to you. Your most recent handful of replies are largely just expressions of incredulity and condescension. They come across as the loud rantings of someone who loves the sound of his own voice and is not at all interested in 2-way dialogue.

You should probably study the topic you are wanting to converse before conversing.

This is fairly ironic coming from the one whose every other sentence is "what on earth are you talking about" or "this makes no sense".

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I think this applies more to you. Your most recent handful of replies are largely just expressions of incredulity and condescension. They come across as the loud rantings of someone who loves the sound of his own voice and is not at all interested in 2-way dialogue.

I stopped using my power of empathy. I stopped putting myself in your (plural) shoes and trying to replicate how you think so that I can understand your arguments.

This is fairly ironic coming from the one whose every other sentence is "what on earth are you talking about" or "this makes no sense".

I'm sorry but nothing intelligible has been put forward. No arguments form first principles. No identifiable progression of logical steps. Nothing. You guys have not clearly demonstrated knowledge in the subject. Philosophyking87 wants to appeal to normative statements in economics to alter its conclusions. That is sure as hell not putting forward an intelligible argument.

How the hell am I meant to understand you? Are you engaging in wishful thinking that someone who has not taken a liberal arts degree will automatically recognize the terminology that you're using?

I have engaged in many formal debates. The largest one went for two hours and it was in front of crowd of 400 people. I have noticed that when people are using terminology that they have not clearly defined, it does not have a clear definition in the first place and it is simply used to convey an emotional appeal. I'm sorry but emotional appeals do not rouse my emotions.

At the end of all of this, there is not a single one of you that can put forward an argument in an ostensible and concise manner.

I thank you for your participation.

 

[pernoctator]

I stopped using my power of empathy. I stopped putting myself in your (plural) shoes and trying to replicate how you think so that I can understand your arguments.

So you're confirming that you have no interest in dialogue and mutual understanding? Why do you continue?

I'm sorry but nothing intelligible has been put forward. No arguments form first principles. No identifiable progression of logical steps. Nothing. You guys have not clearly demonstrated knowledge in the subject. Philosophyking87 wants to appeal to normative statements in economics to alter its conclusions. That is sure as hell not putting forward an intelligible argument.

Except it's not unintelligible to others. I really hope you're merely being pretentious and don't actually suffer from the inability to comprehend anything that isn't a pure equation of logic. One wonders how you could function in life.

Are you engaging in wishful thinking that someone who has not taken a liberal arts degree will automatically recognize the terminology that you're using?

I don't have a liberal arts degree.

I have engaged in many formal debates.

This isn't and never was a formal debate. There is a separate forum for that. That paradigm has its place, but it doesn't solve everything. Like social issues. You might be a specialist out of your league.

 

[crippli]

I will not waste any more time trying to explain what I meant, unless of course someone enters the discussion worthy of further articulation. But I just want to say that this is a very good guess. It's in the general ballpark.

Great. Small corection though. It was a presumption, not a guess.

Participation in the division of labour is by its very nature undignified? Ok; why? What standard was used to determine this?

If I've understood the issue correctly. It's not participation in labor that is 'the problem'. But that labor is valued in currency. To ask you a question. For prostitution. This is an old and established industry. The oldest? IMO a good industry to look at, since it more clearly show the operations of the system, And it goes as well as it ever has, and probably always will. What do you think about the division of currency for the services? Can we consider it a hallmark for the economical system and it's success?

How do you determine worth?

It's already defined.

What do you mean by the term 'equilibrium'?

I meant it after the definition. The principle is drafted here.

This makes no sense.

Suspected as much.

Thank you for your effort but you leave me with more question that you sought to answer.

Well. Those are clearly not easy questions, if not even you can figure them out. I didn't presume to answer them. More to provide input in case your and the philosophers brain are stuck in a rut. I'd be surprised if you guys didn't manage to figure it out yourself, eventually. But sometimes one need a kick in the butt

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

So you're confirming that you have no interest in dialogue and mutual understanding? Why do you continue?

Generally, when one is constructing an argument for purposes of conveying it to an audience, you put it in a form which the desired audience can understand. If you can't convey an argument that is ostensible and concise, that is your fault.

I am going to operate under the premise that you're (plural) not able to construct an ostensible and concise argument until you do so.

Except it's not unintelligible to others. I really hope you're merely being pretentious and don't actually suffer from the inability to comprehend anything that isn't a pure equation of logic. One wonders how you could function in life.

I think is more plausible that no one finds it intelligible and they're merely swayed by language with emotional connotations attached such as 'social justice'. Reason being is that no one here has defined it. The term sounds absolutely great. Music to your ears. Makes you feel good and that it is something that we should work towards. Even makes you feel like you understand it. Problem being is that I am not roused by emotional appeals. I ask "What the does it mean?"

I don't have a liberal arts degree.

Rephrase: Are you engaging in wishful thinking that someone who has not encountered well defined definitions will automatically recognize the terminology that you're using?

This isn't and never was a formal debate. There is a separate forum for that. That paradigm has its place, but it doesn't solve everything. Like social issues. You might be a specialist out of your league.

I was conveying a revelation I had which was borne from experience in formal debating. You're quite correct, this isn't a formal debate. It is not even a debate yet. I actually don't want to debate. Filling in the blanks of what other people say is really damn exhausting.

As for debating social issues, I have done it ad-numerum times.

Let's keep it simple. Ignore everything else that we have conversed.

For what reasons make two supposed problems below problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

If I've understood the issue correctly. It's not participation in labor that is 'the problem'. But that labor is valued in currency. To ask you a question. For prostitution. This is an old and established industry. The oldest? IMO a good industry to look at, since it more clearly show the operations of the system, And it goes as well as it ever has, and probably always will. What do you think about the division of currency for the services? Can we consider it a hallmark for the economical system and it's success?

A market price is the aggregation of individuals' ordinal scales of valuation. In other terms the intersection of the demand and supply curve for that given instant of time and realized information. It is the proxy of how much society values it. It just is. I can't comment anymore or less.

The hallmarks of success of an economic system depends on what you define as success.

It's already defined.

I did not ask what is the definition of worth. I asked how do you determine it. I gave away the answer above. Well, for the case of free acting agents. If we're talking about price controls, worth is determine arbitrarily by some external agent.

I meant it after the definition. The principle is drafted here.

Ohh ok. That movie was ok. I would not watch it twice.

Suspected as much.

To let you know, I really don't want to be an asshole.

Well. Those are clearly not easy questions, if not even you can figure them out. I didn't presume to answer them. More to provide input in case your and the philosophers brain are stuck in a rut. I'd be surprised if you guys didn't manage to figure it out yourself, eventually. But sometimes one need a kick in the butt

I do thank you for your input.

 

[MEDICaustik]

What an interesting thread.

Several posts back, somebody mentioned how both sides seem to be constantly misinterpreting the other. I'm in agreement with that.

Proxy, you seem bent on believing these guys are saying they shouldn't have to do work they don't want to, and yet receive something from society. You have brought up many times that the crux of their argument is the desire to give nothing of value, but receive something of value in return.

That is not what philopsophyking originally brought up. The whole debate started when philosophyking was lamenting his life situation (which I too, like you, thought "let me play you the world's smallest violin"). To me, he seemed to be asking "Why is the world set up in such a way, that the vocation I enjoy and do well at (philosophy) is perceived as having no value (by Proxy)."

I don't think he was making a statement, but was opening a discussion on the VERY broad topic of labor in our society.

He's asking, somewhat existentially, why is philosophy, or any field that doesn't produce a product, considered to have no value, when to him, it has value. Some could argue that philosophy is the most important field in the history of mankind. Philosophy could be what makes us truly human.

I understand where Proxy is coming from. I think everyone can. We've all done a hard day's labor (and those were some of the most peaceful and relaxing days of my life).

Philosophyking - You introduced a fiery topic, and an incredibly broad one to this thread. I would love to discuss (not debate, as I have no TRUE stance in this topic) labor and perceived value in society.

As a suburban kid who had many things given to me that other kids did not, I find that I will spend my entire life paying penance. Suburban kids will never have had as tough a life as urban kids, nor ever worked as hard as rural kids. I'm not sure how this applies to this discussion really, but it's a thought. Any time I ever bring up working conditions, or question the capitalist system, I'm shot down with some statement akin to: "You've probably never worked a hard day in your whole life."

The comic posted earlier in the thread hits a homerun on the whole "someone has it worse than you" front.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't get why you would wish to pool the different branches of social sciences into one..

As was discussed in that "philosophy of economics" article (which, at this point, I'm going to guess no one read...), the most prudent reason seems to be that economists play a very integral, important role in society today, as their insights, analyses, and suggestions often give rise to many political policies that definitely affect society at large. (And as I told Proxy, the movie Inside Job does a fairly good job of illuminating this (at least on some level).) For this reason, it seems prudent to me that a field with this large a connection with the political sphere should take into account the social dynamics while advising politicians on any particular economic policy. In this sense, then, the various insights of the other social sciences should be, at least on some level, taken into account prior to any economic consulting. (And the lack of awareness/concern of the effect of economic advice on people isn't the worst part; the worst part is when economists get involve in the "revolving door" dilemma, whereby they engage in perhaps questionable activity for the right price.)

As in, I don't understand why economics should add value to distribution of goods, production or how the dignified human feels about certain working hours or similar stuff..

Again, economics is largely intertwined with politics, and due to such complex interrelationships, there's definitely connections between any economic standpoint (stance) and any number of effects out in society. For example, if you go with "Trickle Down" policies, perhaps this may lead to the wealthy becoming incredibly more and more wealthy, such that political power, wealth, and resources become largely concentrated, while the poor continue to only sluggishly lag behind -- far behind -- those who receive such tax cuts. [Due to intense property rights, even if a wealthy person spends a ton of cash and saves a load of it in a bank (thereby adding to the money multiplier, the money supply, and ultimately increasing aggregate demand), it's still the case that they can definitely use their current purchasing power to undoubtedly acquire a larger pool of wealth with which to consume more/higher quality resources. Thus, tax cuts for the wealthy don't necessarily lead to more prosperity for everyone else.] Moreover, some argue that giving tax cuts to the poorest members of society might eventually lead to the best overall, macroeconomic effects. As William Jennings Bryan expressed, "...if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them."

At any rate, my point is that particular economic standpoints can definitely lead to particular social effects, and this is why economists should have a wealthy awareness of these potential effects.

These kind of questions are left for the idealists and politicians, and should not be a part of economics.. Simply because it is does not seem relevant within the field..

The problem is that politicians aren't economists; they rely upon economists to inform them on what policies to take (clearly, to reach any particular goal or objective). Look at Reagan, and almost every president since. Look at the "Iron Triangle." Here in Texas, the problem is extremely bad. You have big business guys and lawyers who, with all their wealth, go into politics and become senators, using their own money to fund their campaigns. Then what do they do? Are they really politicians? Are they really economists? Nope. So they essentially rely on a number of consultants (many who are tied to the very industries which are supposed to be regulated). Thus, you have business persons essentially regulating themselves.

My point here is that many of the very decisions politicians make start with economists, making it much more crucial to consider potential social effects of any policy. For these reasons and many others, many of the social sciences are largely interconnected, and largely intersect: "Political science intersects with other fields; including anthropology, public policy, national politics, economics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, sociology, history, law, and political theory." Clearly, in order to understand "politics" and "the state," one must have some awareness of the many branches connected to it. In a similar light, there are many new sub-fields involving both economics and other fields emerging which aren't just focused around "impersonal analysis." You have socioeconomics, economic sociology, and cultural economics (which studies the relationship between culture and economic activity). My view is that economists should not only consult on the basis of "pure analysis of the cold mechanics of the economy," but should also have a large breadth of knowledge concerning potential social effects -- including perhaps cultural.

Economics, in my opinion, should concern itself with the mechanisms of society, and aim to understand them as much as possible, from an empirical perspective, not idealistic. Economics should aim to describe market mechanics.

Again, the fact that economists play such a large role in shaping political policies really makes what you're saying rather ideal. Surely there should be those who rely upon empirical analysis to understand the economy. Yet, at the same time, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that all economists should only be concerned with merely the description of market mechanics. There's clearly good reason against this. Moreover, economists don't merely rely on description when informing politicians in the first place. They clearly have their preferred schools of thought and enjoy using theoretical frameworks based on a very abstract understanding of market mechanics to inform policy decisions. As the philosophy of economics article said, there's plenty of normative ideals floating around in the field of economics already (and my concern is to question those which already exist -- those ones that favor, "individualism, inequality, and the minimal exercise of public policy"). Thus, your ideal view of economics contravenes what economists actually do.

Social science will always have some element of personal values, I believe, but it certainly should not be the aim the of science.. To understand should be the aim, and so facts and data should come first and foremost; how you understand the data is a matter of personal perspective however.. .. But what you argue for, PK, seems to be that feelings on the matter should be in the forefront...

I never said the facts and data should not come first. I clearly said that the social impact should merely be taken into account (as I find that it rarely ever is).

That it is sad that people have 'lost their way' and care too much for profit and too little for art..Why is it the scientists role to tell people what they should like the most, and then (as far as I can read from your view on economics) economics must just try and fit under your personal view on how the world works... What made science so pretty in the first place was that we moved away from just viewing the world with our feelings/opinions and approached it with data and facts..

A lot of the problems of profit stem from the way economists and politicians interact according to a particular set of normative ideals (whereby market mechanics are largely left to regulate themselves, while policies are taken based on an understanding of market mechanics that allows for certain people to benefit). The economist scratches the politician/CEO's back by informing them on how to make more money given the current free market landscape, while the politicians/CEOs scratch the economist's back in turn by paying him/her rather handsomely, if I may say so myself. Thus, we're really getting stuck on the idea that economics is just a science. As with other scientists, such as physicists, scientific understanding is often a valuable tool for those in power who wish to reach their objectives and who are willing to satisfy the very human interests of any particular scientist. As a result, economists don't just idly sit around studying charts and graphs all day; instead, they're very active in shaping the political/social landscape with their analysis. As such, this argument that "science shouldn't do X, Y, and Z" misses the real point.

So in my opinion you are talking about what society should look like, and that is just not the role of scientists.. It might be the role of philosophers, politicians and idealists, and I don't think those should be mixed together.

I somewhat agree, although while it should predominantly be the role of philosophers and politicians to shape society in a progressive manner, I do think economists play a somewhat significant role in how this process occurs, such that there should be some awareness of potential social effects. As I said, economists often lead politicians by the nose, as politicians aren't always so great at economic analysis.

So in short: Social sciences goal should be to understand the mechanisms of the social world. (this is my view on science at least)

I believe this should be the primary role, while there should be a secondary role, whereby if indeed scientists are going to engage in consulting, that they take care to also understand how their insightful advice might affect society at large.

---------------

That is not what philopsophyking originally brought up. To me, he seemed to be asking "Why is the world set up in such a way, that the vocation I enjoy and do well at (philosophy) is perceived as having no value (by Proxy)."

Indeed. I'm trying to get to the very root cause which might explain this situation. Largely, I have given my analysis (with fingers largely pointed at the nature of economic/political activity in a world ever-more obsessed with mere profit gains).

I don't think he was making a statement, but was opening a discussion on the VERY broad topic of labor in our society.

I was engaging in conjecture more than anything, trying to hypothesize as to what might be the cause of the social problems I've noticed. And yes, through this entire process, I have been trying to open up discussion on this broad topic, looking for any and all perspectives people might have. So far, I seem to be the only person interested in this sort of activity.

He's asking, somewhat existentially, why is philosophy, or any field that doesn't produce a product, considered to have no value, when to him, it has value. Some could argue that philosophy is the most important field in the history of mankind. Philosophy could be what makes us truly human.

This is close to what I was saying. I clearly went into a bit more detail about goods of utility which are mass-produced versus more intrinsically valued goods that are often a bit more refined. I'm asking big questions that have garnered very little attention.

Philosophyking - You introduced a fiery topic, and an incredibly broad one to this thread. I would love to discuss (not debate, as I have no TRUE stance in this topic) labor and perceived value in society.

I would love any discussion on the topic. If anyone has an actual, open-minded stance, I'd be willing to listen and see differing perspectives. I just don't wish to discuss the matter with people with convictions so ingrained within themselves that their stance becomes an impediment.

As a suburban kid who had many things given to me that other kids did not, I find that I will spend my entire life paying penance. Suburban kids will never have had as tough a life as urban kids, nor ever worked as hard as rural kids. I'm not sure how this applies to this discussion really, but it's a thought.

The fact that you are honest enough with yourself to admit that your social situation in life clearly hinges, to a large degree, on your background is highly commendable. Very few people seem to have the honesty it takes to look out the world as an impartial observer and to truly notice the advantages they bear in relation to others. So yes, some people do have many things given to them which will take them farther in life, for no particular reason having to do with their own effort or activity. Instead, it's mere accident of birth. Just as you notice the disadvantages urban persons such as myself face in relation to suburban persons such as yourself, so do I notice the huge disadvantages of those living in rural areas to even myself! Think of Louisiana!

Moreover, even those in Louisiana are possibly better off by far than those in the slums of India. This sort of perspective is, in my opinion, a healthy dose which allows us to refrain from becoming so caught up in our own worlds that we forget about the rather unpleasant realities of life that are always there. People tend to live in bubbles of delusion, eschewing the negative and harsh realities, merely trying to escape it. Once successfully escaped, people never look back and continue placing their own interests above all others at all costs. It's highly egocentric to do this, but it seems to be the norm, and I think more people should be honest enough with themselves to do this sort of reflecting from time to time.

Any time I ever bring up working conditions, or question the capitalist system, I'm shot down with some statement akin to: "You've probably never worked a hard day in your whole life."

Agreed. It's fallacious reasoning: ad hominem circumstantial. Just because someone is the CEO of a big business company doesn't mean he's not a philanthropist and that he doesn't work in his off time trying to improve working conditions universally in some fashion. And the same applies to those who critique the free market system: not all of them do so because they have never truly worked or know nothing of the system itself.

Nice post.

 

[MEDICaustik]

Indeed. I'm trying to get to the very root cause which might explain this situation. Largely, I have given my analysis (with fingers largely pointed at the nature of economic/political activity in a world ever-more obsessed with mere profit gains).

I think I already commented in another thread you were in on. I think it is a wonderful, brilliant scam to have convinced so many people that capitalism and "the profit motive" are the noble, driving force behind good things in the world. I stand in awe that this wool has successfully been pulled over the eyes of so many people.

I was engaging in conjecture more than anything, trying to hypothesize as to what might be the cause of the social problems I've noticed. And yes, through this entire process, I have been trying to open up discussion on this broad topic, looking for any and all perspectives people might have. So far, I seem to be the only person interested in this sort of activity.

I think you answered your hypothesis with your statement above. You say the world is becoming ever-more obsessed with profit. My only problem with that argument, is that I think the world has always been the obsessed with profit.

I think it's a sort of.. law of human nature, to think that things are more profound in your times than they were in the past. For example, kids these days are far more disrespectful. Or, back when I was a kid we spent the whole day outside instead of watching TV.

Those kind of statements have probably been said through all of history. I think people are always inclined to find the drama of their lives more dramatic than the past. Illusions of grandeur perhaps?

This is close to what I was saying. I clearly went into a bit more detail about goods of utility which are mass-produced versus more intrinsically valued goods that are often a bit more refined. I'm asking big questions that have garnered very little attention.

I'm of the belief that the moment someone believes you are making something personal, or worse, insulting them, they immediately shut off what you are saying and hear only the bad. Maybe this is the source of the miscommunication with the OP? I don't remember the original response, but maybe he thought it was an attack on him? Not sure.

Regardless, I see multiple people have at least come to your defense saying "No, he wasn't attacking, he was asking a big question."

I for one think about that question a lot these days. As an unhappy participant in the capitalist system, I've found myself becoming resentful of it, and I am seeking my escape.

I would love any discussion on the topic. If anyone has an actual, open-minded stance, I'd be willing to listen and see differing perspectives. I just don't wish to discuss the matter with people with convictions so ingrained within themselves that their stance becomes an impediment.

INTPs are well known for their ability to defend their beliefs. They less well known for their ability to VERY competently defend a belief they don't actually have.

So often these days, I find when discussing politics with my mother, I immediately take the opposite view of her. Even when I don't REALLY identify with the position I'm taking, I feel almost like I have a duty to challenge my mother's beliefs. She is one of those people who takes on the position of the day on Fox News, and uses that as her measure of reality. As a typical INTP, I find it my duty to provide.. clarity

The fact that you are honest enough with yourself to admit that your social situation in life clearly hinges, to a large degree, on your background is highly commendable. Very few people seem to have the honesty it takes to look out the world as an impartial observer and to truly notice the advantages they bear in relation to others. So yes, some people do have many things given to them which will take them farther in life, for no particular reason having to do with their own effort or activity. Instead, it's mere accident of birth. Just as you notice the disadvantages urban persons such as myself face in relation to suburban persons such as yourself, so do I notice the huge disadvantages of those living in rural areas to even myself! Think of Louisiana!

Moreover, even those in Louisiana are possibly better off by far than those in the slums of India. This sort of perspective is, in my opinion, a healthy dose which allows us to refrain from becoming so caught up in our own worlds that we forget about the rather unpleasant realities of life that are always there. People tend to live in bubbles of delusion, eschewing the negative and harsh realities, merely trying to escape it. Once successfully escaped, people never look back and continue placing their own interests above all others at all costs. It's highly egocentric to do this, but it seems to be the norm, and I think more people should be honest enough with themselves to do this sort of reflecting from time to time.

Well, I also benefit from having been born tall. Studies have clearly shown that there is a correlation between height and success.

We all have our advantages.

But, I hate that I have to pay penance. I almost have to be apologetic sometimes.

That also applies to being a man. And being white. Being a suburban, white, male, is being born a sinner.. and I find that for the rest of my life, it will be something I have to work to reverse, you know? Maybe it's fair, but I'm of the opinion that everyone is born with a certain deck of cards, and we all play the best hand we can. My deck came out a little nicer, but in the grand scheme of things, we all have the same 52 cards, just in a different order.

Agreed. It's fallacious reasoning: ad hominem circumstantial. Just because someone is the CEO of a big business company doesn't mean he's not a philanthropist and that he doesn't work in his off time trying to improve working conditions universally in some fashion. And the same applies to those who critique the free market system: not all of them do so because they have never truly worked or know nothing of the system itself.

Nice post.

Right. It's the argument that if you have never had x experience, you can't appreciate x. Logically and technically that's true. But it's a cop out.

I've never ridden an elephant,, but I can appreciate that it would probably be cool. So I've never experienced life as an urban kid in a rough neighborhood. Thankfully I know how to use my imagination, and I imagine it probably does suck.

 

[pernoctator]

Generally, when one is constructing an argument for purposes of conveying it to an audience, you put it in a form which the desired audience can understand. If you can't convey an argument that is ostensible and concise, that is your fault.

There is more to the "audience" than you, though. Heaping blame upon the author doesn't make as much sense when it's only a portion of the audience who can't comprehend. Also, this:

You can't attribute all the responsibility to us for not explaining ourselves up to your standards. When someone clearly says your assumptions are wrong, as in "You did not properly read my posts if you think this is the case" (post #73), the proper response is not to carry on arguing as though it is the case. That only wastes everyone's time, and I don't see what purpose you could have in doing so other than to fool casual readers into thinking you have a strong case by distorting the topic.

I think is more plausible that no one finds it intelligible and they're merely swayed by language with emotional connotations attached such as 'social justice'. Reason being is that no one here has defined it. The term sounds absolutely great. Music to your ears. Makes you feel good and that it is something that we should work towards. Even makes you feel like you understand it. Problem being is that I am not roused by emotional appeals. I ask "What the does it mean?"

Except I'm not merely chanting "Yes! Yes, I agree! What he said!" I came to the same stance independently and explained the point in my own words.

Rephrase: Are you engaging in wishful thinking that someone who has not encountered well defined definitions will automatically recognize the terminology that you're using?

Still a meaningless question. This thread doesn't contain any esoteric jargon. These are standard English words.

For what reasons make two supposed problems below problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

The former was explained in the same post you extracted the quotation from. The latter was not claimed to be a problem at all; quite the opposite in fact.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There is more to the "audience" than you, though. Heaping blame upon the author doesn't make as much sense when it's only a portion of the audience who can't comprehend. Also, this:

I can not identify an argument in the post. I can discern that he is complaining. That is about all that I can discern.

Except I'm not merely chanting "Yes! Yes, I agree! What he said!" I came to the same stance independently and explained the point in my own words.

You're not going to be able to convey anything in your own words, when the person you're conveying to does not understand your terminology.

Why is it so hard for you to put forward a concise and ostensible argument?

Still a meaningless question. This thread doesn't contain any esoteric jargon. These are standard English words.

I do not know what 'social justice' means. I do not know what 'social utility' means. I do not know what you mean when you say the terms 'equality', 'inequality', 'contribution to society', etc.

WHAT DO THEY MEAN? To note, I did research the terms. No source that I could find clearly outlined what they meant.

I am doubting that anyone actually knows what they mean.

This brings me back to what I was stating before:

think is more plausible that no one finds it intelligible and they're merely swayed by language with emotional connotations attached such as 'social justice'. Reason being is that no one here has defined it. The term sounds absolutely great. Music to your ears. Makes you feel good and that it is something that we should work towards. Even makes you feel like you understand it. Problem being is that I am not roused by emotional appeals. I ask "What the does it mean?"

The former was explained in the same post you extracted the quotation from. The latter was not claimed to be a problem at all; quite the opposite in fact.

Where? Highlight the paragraphs.

---

For what reasons make two supposed problems below problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

 

[pernoctator]

For what reasons make [highlight]two[/highlight] supposed problems below problems?

This is a loaded question. You know full well that there are not two problems in the quote you refer to, because I just told you. Stop being dishonest, and stop demanding answers that you have already received.

I can not identify an argument in the post. I can discern that he is complaining. That is about all that I can discern.

Actually that sounds about right, particularly by your standards. It is a complaint. I highly doubt you will ever get the type of "argument" you seek, because the problem by nature doesn't lend itself to that type of analysis (this more or less applies to the rest of your post as well). It's unfortunate for you if you're truly unable to analyse your environment in any other way.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This is a loaded question. You know full well that there are not two problems in the quote you refer to, because I just told you. Stop being dishonest, and stop demanding answers that you have already received.

Were they not the problems he outlined? What in god's name are you guy's trying to convey? What message? What answers?

Tell me in ostensible and concise terms why you are here. What is your purpose? What do you hope to achieve?

Actually that sounds about right, particularly by your standards. It is a complaint. I highly doubt you will ever get the type of "argument" you seek, because the problem by nature doesn't lend itself to that type of analysis (this more or less applies to the rest of your post as well). It's unfortunate for you if you're truly unable to analyse your environment in any other way.

Reason, evidence, arguments from first principles, a identifiable sequence of logical steps to outline the progression of the development of the argument. These are my standards and you guys can't conform to them? This leads me to think all you guys do is write words for the sake of writing words.

 

[GYX_Kid]

This leads me to think all you guys do is write words for the sake of writing words.

I once told an INTJ that there wasn't always such a "clear-cut reason" for everything I (or people in general) did.

I think that INTJs and ENTPs, for example, are people who tend to enjoy being in motion a lot. Action and behavior may seem a comfortable criteria to assess or predict others, when heavily wearing the chessboard-goggles.

If you analyze everyone in terms of their patterns of movement more than their patterns of -being- then that's not the complete picture.

 

[pernoctator]

Were they not the problems he outlined?

No, they weren't. The first one was; the second one wasn't. He never said that people actually finding compatible work was a problem. On the contrary, that's the ideal. You clearly weren't reading that post very carefully.

What in god's name are you guy's trying to convey? What message? What answers?

Tell me in ostensible and concise terms why you are here. What is your purpose? What do you hope to achieve?

It's almost cute how desperate you are to find the "answers" in everything. Sometimes the only immediate goal is to just express the ideas.

Reason, evidence, arguments from first principles, a identifiable sequence of logical steps to outline the progression of the development of the argument. These are my standards and you guys can't conform to them?

*sigh* Basically, yes. Your definitions of these things can't be conformed to in this context. You won't find a criticism of society done with anything approaching the elegance of a mathematical proof. I agree with GYX; everything here is going way over your head because you aren't able to visualize the complete picture, being trapped in the confines of overly structured thought.

 

[Guess]

Oh, boy! I came here to see if phdcomics helped proxy somehow, to laugh a little bit of the hard days and the thread went in a total different direction...

By the way, this recent comic has lots to do with both the original intent and the new direction of the thread:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1490

How the hell am I meant to understand you? Are you engaging in wishful thinking that someone who has not taken a liberal arts degree will automatically recognize the terminology that you're using?

Hmmm. I have to say you could certainly make the effort. After reading the thread as a whole I got the impression that you did not really try to understand. At some points of the thread, it seems you were only skimming through long posts looking for things you disagree..

Philosophyking87, who by the way is an excelent writer, has put quite some interesting ideas. It is not my area of knowledge either but I understood all in the first reading. And when I don't understand someone or the terms used I go to google or wikipedia. It's faster than typing back "hey, I don't understand you"
You understand well economic theories and you are doing a PhD. I am quite sure you could understand those ideas if you tried for real.

Can someone please explain to me the reason why the problems below are problems?

The problem seems to be that there is a lack of "sufficiently dignified work" and "people do find compatible work, based on their highest skills/talents/traits".

This is surely a problem for, at least, those who struggle with their jobs/careers (80% of us?). Due to this mismatch a lot of people live in dilemmas, unhappiness, depression. Some even resort to suicide. Certainly many people from 20% (maybe less) which are happy with their job/career just think it is not their business, not their problem. I do think it is my problem, even if I like my occupation. MEDICaustik seems to also be on the same situation.

Though I think the wording "sufficiently dignified work" was not the best fit to the description. The fact that it was put between quotes, already indicates that he was not sure about that. I've seem "empowering jobs" used to describe similar contexts (that you can google about)

People advocate things without first understanding the ramifications of what they're advocating.
...
Not only does someone else have to bear the burden, intervening in the economy will always cause the allocations of resources to be such that they are not used to satisfy the the most urgent needs/wants of society.

Question: At what cost? Both explicit and underlying.

I understand all your lines of argumentation, and why we have been insisting on this.

But I will give you also some food for thought. Economics also tell us that when we face uncertainty we should use mixed strategies and allocate few resources on strategies which seem suboptimal at the moment. We don't know the future value of philosophical work done today. That's why we do allocate resources in fields like philosophy.

I would love any discussion on the topic. If anyone has an actual, open-minded stance, I'd be willing to listen and see differing perspectives. I just don't wish to discuss the matter with people with convictions so ingrained within themselves that their stance becomes an impediment.

Just create it in a new topic. I promise to discuss it at a high level.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Hmmm. I have to say you could certainly make the effort. After reading the thread as a whole I got the impression that you did not really try to understand. At some points of the thread, it seems you were only skimming through long posts looking for things you disagree..

Initially I did but it dawn on me that he is merely speaking nonsense, appealing to emotions and basing arguments on normative statements ie. opinion.

So far I have not been presented with anything to disagree with. No one has put forward an intelligible argument.

Philosophyking87, who by the way is an excelent writer, has put quite some interesting ideas. It is not my area of knowledge either but I understood all in the first reading. And when I don't understand someone or the terms used I go to google or wikipedia. It's faster than typing back "hey, I don't understand you"
You understand well economic theories and you are doing a PhD. I am quite sure you could understand those ideas if you tried for real.

Spoiler

Valedictorian of my high school. Had the 12th highest high school grades in my state. I graduated my Engineering degree with the third highest grades (with first class honours) out of the graduating class of 800. Additionally, as of a few months ago, I now have a degree in applied mathematics with a GPA of 98%. I had most of my education paid for by scholarships. I am doing the PhD on a whim because someone else decided to pay for it. In the mean time I am being offered lucrative positions at various engineering research firms.

I did research into the statements philosophyking87 was appealing to. I even read a book. Problem being, no where, not wikipedia or the book, outlined the arguments in a clear and ostensible manner. They allude to abstractions. They seem to make the illusion that they know what they're talking about.

Other than that, sometimes I wrote 'I don't understand you' when what he was saying is contradicted by reality.

This is surely a problem for, at least, those who struggle with their jobs/careers (80% of us?). Due to this mismatch a lot of people live in dilemmas, unhappiness, depression. Some even resort to suicide. Certainly many people from 20% (maybe less) which are happy with their job/career just think it is not their business, not their problem. I do think it is my problem, even if I like my occupation. MEDICaustik seems to also be on the same situation.

Though I think the wording "sufficiently dignified work" was not the best fit to the description. The fact that it was put between quotes, already indicates that he was not sure about that. I've seem "empowering jobs" used to describe similar contexts (that you can google about)

The basic complaint that life does not go the way you want it to? People need to work on their emotional maturity.

I understand all your lines of argumentation, and why we have been insisting on this.

But I will give you also some food for thought. Economics also tell us that when we face uncertainty we should use mixed strategies and allocate few resources on strategies which seem suboptimal at the moment.

If there were no uncertainty, there would be no such thing as a profit or a loss on an investment. The market would be at equilibrium, not trending towards it. Through the price determination mechanism and corresponding to know information, the market will allocate resources to fulfill society's most valued ends.

I don't know what you imply by 'we should use mixed strategies' because actors in the market already do this.

We don't know the future value of philosophical work done today. That's why we do allocate resources in fields like philosophy.

If people value philosophy, they will invest in it.

 

[pernoctator]

The basic complaint that life does not go the way you want it to? People need to work on their emotional maturity.

*shakes head* and we're back to square one. You haven't learned a thing.

Spoiler

What he is presenting is idealism. Whether or not it's practical to always live according to an ideal in a non-ideal world is irrelevant to the validity of the idea. People are misinterpreting the question "why should we have to do work we don't want to" as a selfish refusal to accept hard uncaring reality, instead of taking it literally and actually considering "why should we?"

This misses the point.

• One of the main issues was the "lack of suitable potential careers." Given the nature of this issue, therefore, it doesn't seem to make much sense to just say, "Every once in a while, we just have to suck it up," because careers are a matter of continuous longevity and routine -- not sporadic variance. So clearly, the real issue is much larger and deserves more than a simple, not very relevant statement about doing unpleasant work simply every now and then.
  
  
• Even if we do consider the reality of generally doing unpleasant things in life from time to time (a rather broad notion to which I do not recall anyone objecting), there's still a problem. Certainly one example of "doing unpleasant things" is working various low-level jobs prior to the attainment of a suitable career (if such a career is ever attained at all). Yet again, as with careers, social inequity can largely determine what low-level jobs any particular person can attain. As a result, someone who would be best suited to dealing with manual labor (for instance) may land jobs away from the sun and heat, perhaps preferring a job indoors, while a person who would be best suited to talking to customers may prefer a job organizing. This inefficient disparity between traits and job conditions can lead to inappropriate low-level jobs opportunities existing for certain unfortunate people.
  
  Thus, while no one loves manual labor, I would argue that for a number of reasons, some may be more suited to such work than others. In the end, you will have people forced into positions (to "pay rent") where they are (perhaps indefinitely) doing work for which they are not at all suited (which can be very unsettling).
  
  So even if, realistically speaking, we have do unpleasant things every now and then in life, there seems to be little excuse for the level of incongruity which exists in society between traits and job conditions (as I am clearly hinting towards a lack of meritocratic mechanics). And this is certainly a very serious problem that deserves more than some general statement about "not always liking the things we do." There's philosophical problems which are going unaddressed and overlooked.
  
  
• This statement seems to blindly accept the status quo at face value. If there are social limitations as to how we go about conducting business in society and getting work done, there will clearly exist many instances where people will find themselves unhappy, along with the fact that life sometimes requires somewhat unpleasant action from day to day. But daily necessities (such as washing your face, taking a bath, and talking to people) are trivial and don't ever kill anyone, so to speak. Horrible profit-based capitalistic necessities (in order to live), on the other hand, aren't trivial at all, as people really do tend to find meaning in work (so long as they are generally suited to the job itself).
  
  So again, if for some people, finding meaningful work is a very difficult goal (and this is true for many people), we should not so easily cast it off and brush it aside as "just shit you gotta do every now and then." This makes slaves of some people, while others love the work they do. So certainly, there are legitimate social issues at work here, and propping it up to be some instance of people simply preferring not to do unpleasant work really misses the larger point.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Oh, boy! I came here to see if phdcomics helped proxy somehow, to laugh a little bit of the hard days and the thread went in a total different direction...

Yes, but the thread has evolved in such a way as to be illuminating to the casual observer as to a classic struggle. This is depicted in Rolf Collins' short stories frequently, as quoted by Marcus Aurelius "'tis to the man who wants the most goes the most."

By the way, this recent comic has lots to do with both the original intent and the new direction of the thread:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1490

This is very illustrative of some points mentioned earlier regarding the "the grass is always greener" effect. For instance, from the perspective of the spouses of the two men to my left, the one man to right of their spouses is most attractive of course.

Hmmm. I have to say you could certainly make the effort. After reading the thread as a whole I got the impression that you did not really try to understand. At some points of the thread, it seems you were only skimming through long posts looking for things you disagree..

Philosophyking87, who by the way is an excelent writer, has put quite some interesting ideas. It is not my area of knowledge either but I understood all in the first reading. And when I don't understand someone or the terms used I go to google or wikipedia. It's faster than typing back "hey, I don't understand you"
You understand well economic theories and you are doing a PhD. I am quite sure you could understand those ideas if you tried for real.

Mostly I just wanted to see whether if I left a long multiquoted response in this thread anybody would actually read it.

This is surely a problem for, at least, those who struggle with their jobs/careers (80% of us?). Due to this mismatch a lot of people live in dilemmas, unhappiness, depression. Some even resort to suicide. Certainly many people from 20% (maybe less) which are happy with their job/career just think it is not their business, not their problem. I do think it is my problem, even if I like my occupation. MEDICaustik seems to also be on the same situation.

Though I think the wording "sufficiently dignified work" was not the best fit to the description. The fact that it was put between quotes, already indicates that he was not sure about that. I've seem "empowering jobs" used to describe similar contexts (that you can google about)



I understand all your lines of argumentation, and why we have been insisting on this.

But I will give you also some food for thought. Economics also tell us that when we face uncertainty we should use mixed strategies and allocate few resources on strategies which seem suboptimal at the moment. We don't know the future value of philosophical work done today. That's why we do allocate resources in fields like philosophy.




Just create it in a new topic. I promise to discuss it at a high level.

I think my views on the matter should be clear by now.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

*shakes head* and we're back to square one. You haven't learned a thing.

You guys have not put forward an intelligible argument.

You have admitted that you can't:

*sigh* Basically, yes. Your definitions of these things can't be conformed to in this context. You won't find a criticism of society done with anything approaching the elegance of a mathematical proof. I agree with GYX; everything here is going way over your head because you aren't able to visualize the complete picture, being trapped in the confines of overly structured thought.

What next? Are you going to convey your message via interpretive dance?

 

[pernoctator]

You have admitted that you can't

And so why do you continue? Why do you keep returning to boast the fact that you are incapable of comprehending the discussion? You clearly have nothing to add to it besides reiterating your tired old strawmen ("basic complaint that life does not go the way you want it to") (which you can no longer claim ignorance for as it has been repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that that is not the point), and condescension. Neither are welcome.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Oh, boy! I came here to see if phdcomics helped proxy somehow, to laugh a little bit of the hard days and the thread went in a total different direction...

By the way, this recent comic has lots to do with both the original intent and the new direction of the thread:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1490

Nice comic!

Hmmm. I have to say you could certainly make the effort. After reading the thread as a whole I got the impression that you did not really try to understand. At some points of the thread, it seems you were only skimming through long posts looking for things you disagree..

Agreed. But I'm not phased by it.

I did hope to get some open-minded discussion going about the social/ethical problems we face today with capitalist systems, but it's not a big deal. It's just that no one will listen to Proxy if he does not listen to others. As far as I'm concerned, no truly interesting defense has been put forward for capitalism, and my critical points have still not been adequately addressed.

Philosophyking87, who by the way is an excelent writer, has put quite some interesting ideas. It is not my area of knowledge either but I understood all in the first reading. And when I don't understand someone or the terms used I go to google or wikipedia. It's faster than typing back "hey, I don't understand you"
You understand well economic theories and you are doing a PhD. I am quite sure you could understand those ideas if you tried for real.

Thanks. Proxy himself noted my writing ability, and I'm at least glad I get some validation for that. I really thought I expressed a lot of that thought rather well, myself (not to boast). In fact, if I my plan to become a philosophy professor fails, I guess I'll just fall back on a writing career! I clearly have a rather uncommon way with words.

As for my ideas... I mostly just see problems that need solutions; developing ideas to these solutions is the hard part, and that's why I seek out discussions like this. I enjoy thinking of the ins and outs of the system of work in which I live (while most people do not seem to). So for me, this will be an ongoing life-long pursuit of analysis, trying to figure out what exactly is wrong when some people just can't seem to live happily in these profit-based systems.

Also, I would like to point out that I have accepted many virtues of capitalism, even if I've offered some rather harsh criticism concerning its many social vices. It's efficient in resource-allocation (supply/demand, price, etc.), it's very "at home" with our general human egoism (self-interest), and it seems to encourage creativity and production. Socialist economic systems don't really have these virtues, and it is the very reason many today struggle in capitalist systems (i.e., due to the lack of great alternatives). Thus, it becomes necessary to think what can be done to perhaps modify the capitalist system to make it a bit more just for those living within it. Clearly, looking at socialist alternatives is a good idea (think mixed economies). Hence "social capitalism."

This is surely a problem for, at least, those who struggle with their jobs/careers (80% of us?). Due to this mismatch a lot of people live in dilemmas, unhappiness, depression. Some even resort to suicide. Certainly many people from 20% (maybe less) which are happy with their job/career just think it is not their business, not their problem. I do think it is my problem, even if I like my occupation. MEDICaustik seems to also be on the same situation.

Agreed. Many people are truly unhappy with their work, as many people end up in careers and with jobs they simply do not find enjoyable. Why? Of course, most people are never truly sure where they want to work, so they go from college major to college major, or from job to job, trying to find something they believe to be "most suitable." It's somewhat less common that people find jobs they truly love (likely due to the fact that people are so compelled to find work just to survive and make end's meat, and that people can only acquire job positions due to social networking (who you know) and socioeconomic status (to a large extent, i.e., how much education you have, what sort of income you already have, family wealth, etc.). Thus, most people in this system don't truly find satisfactory work. Again, the socioeconomic limitations bear a large weight upon their shoulders that largely prevent this. So there's clearly an issue here worth thinking about (even for those who aren't radically opposed to capitalism).

Though I think the wording "sufficiently dignified work" was not the best fit to the description. The fact that it was put between quotes, already indicates that he was not sure about that. I've seem "empowering jobs" used to describe similar contexts (that you can google about)

Yeah, I was thinking outside of the box, using creative terminology. But given the context, I thought it would be somewhat given what I meant. Guess not.

Just create it in a new topic. I promise to discuss it at a high level.

I plan on it. I really think a forum filled with INTPs is an ideal place to get this discussion going. The fact that many people mindlessly accept the system without much thought makes it a little necessary for the rest of us who actually do think outside the box to analyze the ins and outs of the relation between humans and the capitalist system. And just as an objective thinker, I must say that Marx really did a lot of the work already. A lot of his criticism still stands, and you can see people out in the labor force living as Marx described them, though they are too complacent to really do anything about it. They just don't think about it.

 

[Guess]

The basic complaint that life does not go the way you want it to? People need to work on their emotional maturity..

I think you are now acknoweldging that people having a poor match between innate skills aptitude and possible jobs is a problem for someone (most people actually)

But it is a pity if "get over it" is the best type of advice you can provide.

We can ask why. We can think how it could be different. We can start to act to make it different for future generations.

I don't know what you imply by 'we should use mixed strategies' because actors in the market already do this.

I implied what I meant and wrote: we should use mixed strategies and allocate a few resources on strategies which seem suboptimal at the moment.

It was mostly related to this you have been advocating:

Philosophers, not wise enough to figure out that their supposed field of expertise is worthless to society.

Even if your valuation of philosophy is zero current value, the society should still invest a little bit on it, because it can not possibly know the future value of philosophical work done today. Not with markets, not with any existing mechanisms.

A couple of examples of historical mistakes of under-evaluation

" Van Gogh's works are among the world's most expensive paintings ever sold, as estimated from auctions and private sales. Those sold for over $100 million (today's equivalent) "
"The Red Vineyard is an oil painting by the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, executed on a privately-primed Toile de 30 piece of burlap in early November 1888. It was supposedly the only piece sold by the artist while he was alive.
and sold for 400 Francs (equal to about $1,000-1,050 today)"

"We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects and passionate devotees of the hitherto untouched beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength, with all our indignation in the name of slighted French taste, against the erection…of this useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower … To bring our arguments home, imagine for a moment a giddy, ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack, crushing under its barbaric bulk Notre Dame, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of les Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, all of our humiliated monuments will disappear in this ghastly dream. And for twenty years … we shall see stretching like a blot of ink the hateful shadow of the hateful column of bolted sheet metal"

Yeah, I was thinking outside of the box, using creative terminology. But given the context, I thought it would be somewhat given what I meant. Guess not.

I believe I did understand what you meant. It is just that for me "sufficiently dignified work" directly contrast with things which are not dignifying, i.e. makes people lose their dignity. Non dignifying directly makes me think of "jobs" like prostitution or drug dealer.
In contrast, I do think jobs like being waiter or doing cleaning are dignifying ( in the sense of providing dignity, not in the sense of raising status).
But those types of jobs are certainly not empowering jobs. They do not lead to the self-actualization of the employee, and they are mostly about repetitive tasks.

I will quote some other passages you wrote throughout the thread soon ( I just don't want make it too long for now).