Philosophy
Probably already exists, i was lazy to search for the topic sorry.
To which philosophy or philosopher do you identify with?
I would say i got Parmenides and Heraclitus influences, and by consequence Plato's. I believe in the immortality of the ideas and that truth is an act of reasoning of what we obtain from our senses.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
People say that I resemble Frederick Nietzsche, with my cynicism, skepticism, amorality, and in general most of the traits that he shares.
People admire and respect their superiors, are repulsed and disgusted by their inferiors, and connect to their equals.
The extreme highs and lows in life get a strong reaction - Yet it the averages in life that most people connect to.
The class system is nothing more then different groups of people grouping with their fellow equals and feeling the sense of separation from their superiors and inferiors.
I don't know enough philosophers to say who I am, but I'd say I was highly sceptical and sure of the 'truth' of my own beliefs.
Ah NietzscheOriginally Posted by Dash
. He's one of my favorites too.
Maybe I can post some of my notes about ancient philosophers.
Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, William James
You possibly have plato influences too, since Chomsky worked with Descartes and he is influenced by plato.
How curious i didn't know Marx had Kant or Spinoza influences.
This assumes that in a stateless society an upper-classes life style is diminished. There is no reason that in a stateless society the lower and middle classes cannot simply be raised to an upper-class lifestyle along with the upper-class.
Obviously you don't believe in fair play don't you?
Of course I do, it's the other people that don't.
I believe people are fundamentally good, they are born good. But they are very easily corrupted, and very easily tempted. On the whole, if given the chance to do wrong when no one is looking, people will.
Remember, the devil isn't in the darkness, he's rattling around inside.
A Rousseau disciple, so would it seem.
The more you have, the better off you are. That's why capitalism is such a popular system, and clever people vote Conservative (because the Conservatives reward success while Labour punishes it).
it was always my understanding that conservatives reward being born rich
I don't think it's right that money should be taken from those who achieve and given to those who don't. We worked hard to get where we are.
They also reward those who get richYou work hard and get to the top, and then you can stay there. What's wrong with that?
The Liberal Democrats are gaining ground, it seems.
Random political statistics time! Share of the vote based on Thursday's council elections are as follows:
Conservative 44%
Liberal Democrats 25%
Labour 24%
London has a Conservative Mayor (Boris Johnson).
Labour has had its worst performance in 40 years.
Basically you have to have money to make money. And all the down trodden aren't necessarily lazy.
They may be very hard workers, but just too stupid to fend for themselves. In such a case I think society should shelter them. This is also why we have the career of cashier at Wal-Mart. Think of Wal-Mart as more than a place to get great deals, but also as a place for the chronically stupid people to seek gainful employment.
Also some very intelligent people can make poor life choices and end up on the out and out. These people should also receive the help they need.
Either we should be liberal or we should be Spartans. Destroy the deformed and stupid looking ones at birth. Much better I say than letting them suffer and be degraded all their life.
Yes, those on welfare live as nigh omnipotent kings at the expense of the thankless toil of the upperclass pseudo-aristocracy.I don't think it's right that money should be taken from those who achieve and given to those who don't.
Ha freaking ha. I'm not against welfare out right. For example, disabled people who are incapable of working should get it. However, if you are capable of working and yet do not progress I do not think you should be entitled to a chunk of my money. If you've been stuck in the same low-pay job you started in twenty years ago, then clearly you are doing something wrong. Your failure is not something beyond your control, it is your fault. Now go and do something about it.
People with careers do not need welfare. They make their own money. If they decide to live beyond their means then it's their own damned fault and I for one do not believe I should help bail them out.
If you make a bad choice it's also your fault and you should be responsible. Once again, deal with it yourself.
If people have a chance to improve themselves they should take it rather than taking money from those who already have.
You have to be 185% below poverty level before you can qualify for welfare. Do you have any idea how poor that is?
Poverty level is something like 18k a year for the first person and 6k for each person after that, so for a family of a mother and 2 children the mother would have to make considerably less than 32k per year. That is for any assistance.
Plus there ARE time constraints, you can only be on full welfare until your child is 4 years old.
If you are a young single mother (IE: 17) you cannot receive welfare until the child is born. So you are homeless, jobless, and 8 months pregnant. I guess it's her own fault her crackhead boyfriend beat her up and set her on the doorstep with nothing more than the clothes on her back? Her baby should suffer because she was abandoned by parents and spouse?
The state will set her up in government funded housing (which is really shitty roach infested, mice and rat infested) before the baby is born but she is expected to feed herself. The soup kitchen will give her a meal once a day and WIC will provide milk and eggs.
However, they won't give her any monetary assistance until the baby is born. That means no crib, no car seat, no formula, no clothes, no diapers until the baby is born. You can't go home from the hospital until you have a car seat, they won't let the baby leave even if you are walking. They will give you enough food for about 1-3 days for the baby at the hospital.
Do you have an idea of the pain you are in after giving birth? I do. Now imagine the emotional pain of being alone, broke and a new mother with nothing to feed her innocent baby.
I can see where you come from. People should fend for themselves if they are capable, but it is a fact that they aren't always able to do for themselves, and in such cases we as a society should take care of them.
But I don't think you have any clear idea how pitiful some of these people's stories can be. You have no idea what destitution is. You should volunteer in a soup kitchen and just listen to them for one day.
I was standing in the store the other day and this homeless guy came in and bought one item and I can't remember what it was. After he walked away the cashier looked at me and said, "The poor can be clean." and wrinkled her nose. I wanted to shout, "SOAP COSTS MONEY." if that man had money for soap don't you think he would have bought more than a single can of soup or etc? Jesus people OPEN YOUR EYES.
One word, lady: ENGLAND. Different rules over here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
