|
| |
Economics:
"A "competitive
socialism", business specifically designed to enhance
the the quality of life. Designer villages that operate
on altruism rather than self interest or greed."
1) Altruism has never
been defined
maybe not the right word, but
operated by the terms established by a higher ethical
code, or stages of moral development as characterized by
Kohlberg, I am uncertain how
to achieve that, but it could be that you would test and
governance would be controlled by those that test high,
or by a single person only because they see something
better for others and can do it. This whole
concept is based on the belief that we all essentially
want to be selfless or altruistic and that its a learned
behavior that can be tested and categorized and
augmented. , more importantly,
altruism is not an issue of one helping another except
in the case of 1-3 generationally relations.
2) Altruism arises
from the needs of one being fufilled by another,
especially when they are unequal. Self-interest is the
governing force for individuals, perhaps only in 85% of
situations but, it is the only force we are able to
directly act on. We see and receive as individuals yet
act as groups based on individual results. Altruism is
an effect that is unique because some individuals
"appear" to receive nothing for their contributions, yet
we do not recognize any chronic effects.
3)This
is not socialism, people work, get fired, and are paid
according to value and motivated by self interest. This
can only work in a fee capitalist environment. Its
a business, the object is to maximize profit .. its what
is done with the profits that is different. Profits are
put into education, community services and and charity
if there is any left over. Socialism
focuses on the averages, which in life are never the
averages. The averages die, thats how life works,
because thats how evolutionary design worked since the
beginning. The average maintains except in the extreme
when it meets with almost complete failure. With
regards to economics, compare fortune 500 companies of
50 years ago with companies of today and less than 5
will probably remain. It is in these microcosms that
outliers and unexpected events bring the averages to
their true values, i.e. nothing.
This is one of those microcosms, just as transient.
Simply a business with one leg in a developed
country and another in a less developed country making
profit in the wage disparity between the two nations.
Profits are put into the education of its employees and
their community. A business that may just last a few
years. It is an experiment to find new understanding of
how to build business as a social vehicle. Thats
what averages meant in the first place when they were
created; a simple aggregation of data that when
marginalized, had a singular value. Socialism tries to
apply this type of rationalization to "level" the
playing field, so to speak, but the idea that life can
be reduced to redistrubtabile assets is something that
we created, not really how life acts. Life, even in
humans, will always reward some much, much more than
others and for socialism, even that only occurs once,
will nullify its whole purpose. Those that get rewarded
and are NEVER or partially punished will continue to
reap rewards until they own the whole lot, like the
philosopher and the grains of rice.
Evolution:
1) Biological
evolution is not something that can be linked
exclusively with humans. Whatever we are now, we must
recognize that there were multiple biological pathways
were could have followed but didn't simply because the
relative environment didn't favor it. Just because we
appeared to mature and develop so quickly doesn't mean
we are the right answer. I agree
there is no certainty that we are the answer or the
problem. We truly can barely know if what each of us do
is good or bad. What ever path way that got us here "is"
the only pathway and therefore would have to be the
right answer. Reality appears to me much more
deterministic than we thought.
block universe
Paul Davies
2) At one point,
"Renaissance men" had value and were supported, thus,
indirectly evolutionary favored. The point is not that
people were unable to continue to learn 90% of all
knowledge. The point is that what we thought we "knew"
was not correct. Economics is the most germane example.
Parts of biology like ecology, environmentalism,
genetics, hormones, drug delivery, etc. The list is
endless and it is so on purpose. A being that managed
to learn 90% of what we think is knowledge is only going
to know what we think we've figured out. People,
groups, universities, and especially corporations are
proved wrong everyday. But when a person is shown
wrong, we don 't recognize that that also implies
failure. Thus failure would be an inherent process in
whatever person,computer,etc. assumed a 90% knowledge
base. Yes failure tends to be
inherent in all systems, so it belongs to the system in
the same way success does. Who said "there
is no good nor bad only thinking makes it so"? I
believe that our brains and we for that matter are
better suited for a simpler reality, of the green grass
and sunshine variety. That we do construct a separate
larger reality that we truly don't and will not be able
to truly understand or manage. That evolution is like a
fractal, and it appears to us to be moving at an
increasing rate these days. Just as a single liver cell
possibly has no concept that its part of a human being
nor knows what the human does. In this same manner we
will not know nor understand what we are part of.
problem in philosophy
What do you consider to be the most pressing philosophical issues of our
day?
The most pressing issue is that philosophical knowledge has stopped
progressing and is now regressing. This is due to the fact that increased
knowledge of a philosophical topic required increased number of
specializations and sub-specializations in the various disciplines, leading
to the same situation that is current in physics, namely, that experts in
one area of specialization are not only unaware of other areas but also
unaware that some or many of the premises adopted in their specialization
have been disconfirmed or rendered false or unjustified by work in other
areas. The consequence is that much or most of the output in different areas
of specialization are not recognized by the authors and readers of this
specialized area to have been disconfirmed, rendered unjustified or false by
other areas; this is as true of me as of every scholar. I am most interested
in the task of slowing down the rate at at which philosophical (and
scientific) study is regressing. Obviously I can only make a small dent in
several areas and specialize in two or three, depending on how you define
'specialization'.
Quentin Smith, Ph.D
Western Michigan University
|
|