41–50 of 126 posts
If you are interested in a rather in-depth examination of this line of thinking, I highly recommend Adam Curtis's 2002 documentary "The Century of the Self" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
Not saying that Curtis's documentaries are without merit, just lending a little context.
I think it's probably the author's assumption that they're on to something new - a thought that doesn't recur over and over again:
http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/13_10/BadForYou-tech...
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
Why just "capitalism"? I think it's way too broad
Capitalism without civil society (in republican understanding), perhaps. It's still very general
"Let's consider the bottom 55% - the kind of people whose chief pleasures in our Brave New World may be TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect spelling in text messages, Facebook, Instagram, Candy Crush, etc. - they're not massively intellectual."
No, but Postman argues that they used to make more intensive use of their brains in the "print era".
Right now I can't find the full text to copy and paste the relevant excerpt here, but I googled up a summary of his point:
http://www.kemstone.com/Nonfiction/Politics/Amusing.htm
"Before going into the details of how and why this is, Postman takes us back to the 19th century and uses the debates between Lincoln and Douglas to illustrate the vast gaping chasm between discourse as it was then and how it is now. The famous debates between Lincoln and Douglass each lasted three hours long, each devoted to one issue, and divided between an hour of speech, an hour and a half of response, and a half-hour rebuttal. What makes this even more striking is that these debates were actually shorter than most normal debates of the time! Crowds would gather around these two men and listen to them speak at length about one subject, carefully constructing logical arguments and parsing through each others’ claims in true analytical fashion. The 19th century mind was habituated to a literary form of oratory, which unlike pictures and film has propositional content—one can say of it that it is either true or false, which is not the case when it comes to images. Even advertising was purely literary, designed to appeal to the understanding as opposed to desire."
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
I think you're doing a disservice to the 'bottom 55%' of society. Ignoring perhaps the bottom and top 5% of the curve, the spectrum of intellectual difference isn't that big. Most people can read a book. Most people can visit a museum. Hell, most could write a book. Most people can understand and enjoy intellectual pursuits. The reason why the bottom 55%'s chief pleasures are "TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect s…
Yes, those people could do the things you say. But they don't. The point I'm making is that coercing them into behaving differently is not practical nor moral.
I have an IQ in the top 0.001%, am relatively wealthy, relatively well educated, and have a bizarrely diverse skillset. I play Call of Duty and enjoy life's trivialities much more than I paint or talk philosophy.
I agree that society can be fearsome for some in the way you describe, but as I said its reflective of its components, and in order to change the scary bits you have to enforce change on those nearer the top of our curve - and I outright reject the notion that they are more deserving of the pains of coercion owing to their status. Everybody will always suffer in a plan to take one set of ideas and force them upon others. History teaches this lesson over and over again. Present government is teaching it now.
Capitalism - the best word to describe our current societal system - is the antithesis of this. It promotes freedom for everyone to do what the hell they want, not what they 'should' or are told to, and prescribes nothing but subscription to capitalism itself which incidentally is not a system imposed on the world by political leaders, but rather a descriptive term for something humans have been doing (or trying to do against a range of government constraints) for centuries: trading 'stuff' they have for stuff they don't freely and openly.
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
Nice stance! But isn't this apologetic thinking a pattern applicable on pretty much any order of things? "It can be worse" and "don't ask too much from your high-horse" are not the principles I choose to follow nor recommend to others. I agree that the world (at least in the most part) changed for the better from "back in the day" but I believe that it was thanks to that kind of people that use to sit on high horses…
I want to live in a world where there is true freedom. I want a purer form of capitalism with heavy reductions in current government control that inhibits the ability of us all to do things today. I want them to live in a world where the very concept that one person or group of people enforces control over others is both alien and absurd, and certainly not their reality as it is ours.
My solution involves only the absolution of control from those who should never have had in the first place, and enforces nothing on anyone.
I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…
"I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers." Why just "capitalism"? I think it's way too broad Capitalism without civil society (in republican understanding), perhaps. It's still very general "Let's consider…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers." Why just "capitalism"? I think it's way too broad Capitalism without civil society (in republican understanding), perhaps. It's still very general "Let's consider…
My point is that there is no way to viably change the status quo - the merits of doing so are irrelevant. We should accept this and not spend our time trying to change others, or wishing they were different, but rather channel our own energies into things constructive for our own time on this earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're doing a disservice to the 'bottom 55%' of society. Ignoring perhaps the bottom and top 5% of the curve, the spectrum of intellectual difference isn't that big. Most people can read a book. Most people can visit a museum. Hell, most could write a book. Most people can understand and enjoy intellectual pursuits. The reason why the bottom 55%'s chief pleasures are "TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect s…
I said their chief pleasures 'may' be those things - a list suffixed with 'etc'. My aim was to get the reader to have an idea of the kind of person I was talking about rather than construct an exhaustive but useless and pointless list of their activities. Yes, those people could do the things you say. But they don't. The point I'm making is that coercing them into behaving differently is not practical nor moral. I ha…
I agree that it's not moral, but it is demonstrably practical - business changes the way people act all the time, coercing people into behaving in a way that, in my opinion, holds the majority back and turns them into mere passive consumers rather than the creative, intelligent people they could be. While you say in another comment that you want purer capitalism without government interference, I actually want to go further still - removing corporate interference in our lives as well. Although, admittedly, I have no idea at all how you'd do that.
