BF2S Forums Universal Language

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To a degree...  yes.  There are elements of both capitalism and socialism that satisfy rational self-interest, which is probably part of why the most successful economies are a combination of both.

It has nothing to do with a combination. Self-interest transcends economic theory.

I would argue that it relates to economic theory just the same as it relates to interpersonal behavior.

The most successful economic structures mold to the tendencies of human nature.  Capitalism is only successful to the point that it satisfies base desires and ambition.  Socialism is only successful to the point that it encourages people to work together without weakening ambition.

But the most important part is the rational part.  Rational self-interest is having the foresight to know what balance of your own immediate interests and the interests of others is optimal for societal cohesion.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Social cohesion is not a goal unto itself.

Anyways my point was even though self-interest lends itself to aspects of economic theory, it has nothing to do with economic theory. As you said economic theory has to mold itself around self-interest because self-interest is unchanging. Economics is a function of rationality, but not the other way around.

Self-interest does change -- it depends on the level of someone's rationality.  Some people have rational self-interest, others just have a more shortsighted self-interest normally referred to as greed or selfishness.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Socialism doesn't encourage people working together any more than capitalism does. If I want to make good x and I need goods y and z to do that, I have to work with the producers of y and z to achieve my own goals. They are working towards their own ends, I am working towards my own ends, but it's the same effect as working with a socially mandated government to make good x at reduced cost and reduced benefit.

Yes, but where the balance between the two is optimal depends on the culture involved.  Some cultures are more socialist inclined, while others are more capitalist inclined.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Referred to as such when the offender is rich. The same short-sightedness is called laziness when the offender is poor.

People are rational beings that don't understand how to use their rationality to discover what is in their best interest. Society puts blinders on them to keep them working for the group, regardless of actual result.

I would argue rationality is trained.  Innately, we are not rational, but instead emotional and instinctual.  Culture in and of itself is necessary for guiding a population toward rationality.

Basically, it takes a concerted effort to learn things like self-discipline and critical thinking.  Once these things are established, then rationality is possible.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It could also be said that some cultures are more inclined towards slavery than others.

Agreed.  Another important balance that society must establish is between the rights of an individual and the interests of a society.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How did the first caveman who decided to beat the crap out of lion with a big stick come up with that?

Humans are inherently rational. We are so rational that when we are taught through repetition that emotions and instincts will sufficiently provide for our well-being that critical thinking is unnecessary.

Your example refers to instinct.  Now, I will say that some people naturally lean more towards rationality.  Some people are naturally "ubermenschen".  Generally speaking, the more rational people of a society will tend to reach higher positions of power.  This doesn't mean that all leaders are rational (obviously), but behind every major leader, there is usually at least one person that is more rational than the norm.

These more rational people are usually the ones that either lead or create a culture.  If they are what most of us would consider benevolent, then they will attempt to use culture to make the average person more rational.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I can't believe you see that as a balance. The rights of the individual is the only goal appreciable goal of society.

In your opinion....   There are people on the other extreme in Eastern societies who would see you as the unbelievable one for putting so much emphasis on the individual.

Personally, I'm in the middle.  In many respects, I'm probably less individualistic than the average American but less collectivist than the average Chinese person.  In some ways, you could say Western Europe would be representative of the middle of this spectrum.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How is the use of tools instinct?

The rest is what I said in the OP. The only issue is rational people are not benevolent, that is a contradiction, so while we might want them to be benevolent sitting and hoping is useless. We have to appeal to them in a way that makes sense.

You're correct that using tools isn't instinct, but inherently realizing the danger that predators pose is instinct.  Back when we were living in the wilderness, we had instincts that have been muted quite a bit by now.  For example, we inherently knew the danger that a lion posed without having to be attacked or chased by one beforehand.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Collectivist has little to do with the basic rights of an individual. I don't think very many people in Eastern countries would think I'm crazy by saying no one should ever, ever be a slave...unless it displeases their master.

The debate is how you define slavery.  Doing things for the good of society over your own good is something valued more strongly in Eastern societies.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm not talking about recognizing friend from foe. How did the first human come up with the idea of a tool if rationality is trained?

This goes back to what I was saying about some people being more rationally inclined.  Let me clarify.  I'm not saying 100% of rationality is trained -- however, it does require training to become mostly rational in behavior.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't realize slavery had such a fuzzy definition.

It does...  Some would say that capitalism in certain forms is slavery.  It's all a matter of perspective.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It does...  Some would say that capitalism in certain forms is slavery.  It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm pretty sure nobody says that. Not with a sensible argument anyways. I can say that purple is slavery, that doesn't make it a valid perspective.

Well it's good to see that you have an open mind about this....

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well it's good to see that you have an open mind about this....

mmmmm yeah I don't really have so much of an open mind when you say "some people" equate an economic theory with the subjugation of humans by the brethren.

Well, consider this...  Indentured servitude was a form of slavery that was created for people to pay back debts over the long term.  While said servitude is no longer present, there are subtler forms of what could be considered slavery -- like ARMs.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Quotes from http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3037913

p.60 wrote:

Definition is to a major degree dependent upon your partisan position. Your leader is always flexible, he has pride in the dignity of his cause, he is unflinching, sincere, an ingenious tactician fighting the good fight. To the opposition he is unprincipled and will go whichever way the wind blows, his arrogance is masked by a fake humility, he is dogmatically stubborn, a hypocrite, unscrupulous and unethical, and he will do anything to win; he is leading the forces of evil. To one side he is a demigod, to the other a demagogue.

To be looking for common ground by definition is to look for failure. It doesn't make any sense to ask the opposition to see it your way - they obviously have their reasons for picking their ideology of choice, and that decision is rarely made in an environment absent of your ideology. You cannot speak your native tongue, you have to appeal to them in the universal language of self-interest.

Why you think action x is the best choice is irrelevant. You are not the one making the decision. You have to state the case the person making the decision would be making if you were the one with the decision to make. Arguments of morality are meaningless - unless stated in terms of their morality.

p.24 wrote:

Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem ;he thinks of his actual resources and the possibilities of carious choices of action. He has of ends only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruptions fears life.

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not agents of action"; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them.

This is why making statements about what is good or what is right doesn't make practical sense. Everyone has been corrupted to the means that works best for achieving their ends, and their morality forms around that.

It makes sense that for most people, appealing to a general social definition of superego works. In a broad sense yes, most of us share definitions of what is right and wrong, but only because that is how most people have learned to function best. Most people are mediocre, and so those people are most effective at wielding their mediocrity by adhering to social standards. The safety in numbers develops a sufficiently common standard that, if accepted, grants protection so long as it is followed. The ego yields to the superego entirely.

The problem is the exceptions. The people that break the mold for whatever reason are the ones in positions of power. Maybe it's because of bloodline and not from natural or trained ability as we might like, but the fact is they are where they are because they have no need to conform to the overarching superego. They have the luxury of being completely practical, being immune to the need for personal salvation. That means they don't need to morally satisfy themselves - that also means they don't need to satisfy others in order to satisfy themselves. They are a force acting outside of social norms that can only be reasoned with in terms of their own unique morality.

We ridiculously expect the elite to conform to our idea of right and wrong because we believe it to be absolute, despite its birth as a collective power-grab by the masses. We talk to them in our language and act shocked when they don't understand what we're saying.