Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#21

Post by Propelloni » Sat, May 10, 2025, 10:45 AM UTC

smitty1e wrote: post #11

Propelloni wrote: post #8

To summarize: the author struggles with the question why they should care (mostly about society and social contracts). The author references Plato's Republic, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and one of Wolff's blog postings and quotes the bible on stuff. To me there is no clear line of argument visible. I presume the author thinks they are some kind of a Christian punk. Fine by me. The author seems to…

The article was something of a tribute to the author of => https://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-completion-...

Sure, the author says as much and linked to the article you also linked. Wolff makes the better read and shows philosophical rigor in his working, for example, extracting and spelling out concise premises and conclusions. Now I have a hunch that the author is not an native English speaker, which certainly could explain some less convincing sentences.

But unlike Wolff, the author covers too much ground. Wolff limits his scope to Kant's works and esp. Kant's theory of justice, and excludes the seminal works on social contracts by other authors (which would IMO have impact on Wolff's conclusions) and acknowledges that fact, e.g. immediately in the title of his essay. The author does no such thing.

I respect the author, I myself had an infatuation with Illich and Mühsam in my punk years, but I still think that if you want to make broad claims, you have to have broad knowledge. The exclusion of, e.g. existentialist or other political and moral philosophers, makes the purview too narrow for such a broad conclusion. Aother viable approach -- working from first principles -- is also nowhere in sight. It's like saying "I don't like ice cream" after having only tasted Smurf and Big Red flavor.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#22

Post by krisoft » Sat, May 10, 2025, 11:12 AM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #19

The article says this: “Taking an active stance on political issues is just a small part of the obligations we acquire as humans, citizens, parents, employees, residents of some apartment block, and so on. And our free time… They might as well outlaw it.” This sounds like the core complaint in the article and it leaves me utterly perplexed. Most people live their entire lives, without ever having what i would call an…

And then they go into details. (Just pepered here and there among the philosophical mussings.)

“there are people who do intervene with every aspect of our life, including our taste of music, or modes of transportations.”

And provides concrete examples of their desires “I like to listen to death metal, while riding a brakeless bike”.

Who cares about your taste of music? If others don’t like what you are listening get some headphones? Hang out with people who like what you are listening?

And about the modes of transportation… people care that you don’t kill or injure them while you transport yourself. They also know that if you injure yourself you will whine and make a nuisance of yourself until people help you. So that is the two reason why people care about your “modes of transportations”. If you won’t injure anyone else, and we won’t have to deal with your maimed body knock yourself out. Fly your brakeless bike wherever you want to. Attach even JATO rockets to it if you want.

It really feels like someone told this person once that they should turn down the volume on their music, and they should maintain their bike, and they are trying to build a whole moral philosophy around this experience.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#23

Post by lazide » Sat, May 10, 2025, 11:20 AM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #19

The article says this: “Taking an active stance on political issues is just a small part of the obligations we acquire as humans, citizens, parents, employees, residents of some apartment block, and so on. And our free time… They might as well outlaw it.” This sounds like the core complaint in the article and it leaves me utterly perplexed. Most people live their entire lives, without ever having what i would call an…

Anyone in a FAANG, anywhere near a Trumper in their family, or anywhere near an Anti-Trumper has been subjected to the ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ on numerous political topics over and over again.

To the point that a great many people have had to drop numerous friends and family just to maintain their sanity.

I’m honestly not sure where the ‘that totally isn’t happening’ stance you’re taking comes from. Are you uniquely shielded? Or just oblivious?

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#24

Post by lazide » Sat, May 10, 2025, 11:23 AM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #13

rini17 wrote: post #10

Violence is not mentioned even once. Maybe because it is and always was _the_ ground to compel all people to enter a social contract. Decentralization and deregulation of violence was attempted many times and ended up with survivors agreeing to centralize it again. And maybe that was what Kant had in mind and then immediately missed it too, instead he argued by property. And yes, private property elevated to moral im…

> Violence is not mentioned even once. It's mentioned at the start: Our entire social contract boils down to, “I promise not to kill you if you promise not to kill me.” There’s nothing more to it. That said, I agree that the author subsequently ignores the implications of this, which makes his conclusions rather meaningless in my view.

Yup, IMO they’ve been in a very shielded environment (first world problems?) where all the abstract philosophical stuff can be discussed - because they don’t need to worry about food on the table or getting murdered because of more basic things.

They’re starting to get it, but it hasn’t quite clicked yet.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#25

Post by jonathanstrange » Sat, May 10, 2025, 12:39 PM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #14

jonathanstrange wrote: post #12

The author quotes Plato only to make a point that Plato explicitly dismisses, and completely ignores the rest of The Republic, which is a sophisticated thought experiment devised to counter the unsatisfactory ending of the first book and Thrasymachus's position. This is really not how you should deal with other authors. It would be much better to make the point he wants to make without false witnesses and name droppi…

The article mentions that.

No, the article does not mention that it completely dismisses the rest of The Republic and just name drops Plato while deliberately ignoring one of his main points. It's particularly bad in this case because the remaining books of The Republic are basically a long reply to the aporetic ending of the first book.

It's intellectually lazy and rude. Don't grab quotes out of context to make a point the author never made, mentioning that you do so just makes things worse, not better.

My 2 cent, sorry if it sounds like nitpicking.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#26

Post by jaybrendansmith » Sun, May 11, 2025, 1:23 PM UTC

rini17 wrote: post #10

Violence is not mentioned even once. Maybe because it is and always was _the_ ground to compel all people to enter a social contract. Decentralization and deregulation of violence was attempted many times and ended up with survivors agreeing to centralize it again. And maybe that was what Kant had in mind and then immediately missed it too, instead he argued by property. And yes, private property elevated to moral im…

His entire argument rests on the foundation that he lives in a just society. It's kinda funny. The entire reason for these philosophies and government at large is to solve for externalities: Kingpins, Terrorists, Cancer-causing chemicals, Violence, Street Gangs, Sudden death by falling cranes, madmen with AR-15s, the list goes on forever. You only have the pleasure of being a punk when you have solved for all of these externalities and live in a peaceful and just society.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#27

Post by rini17 » Sun, May 11, 2025, 1:36 PM UTC

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #26

rini17 wrote: post #10

Violence is not mentioned even once. Maybe because it is and always was _the_ ground to compel all people to enter a social contract. Decentralization and deregulation of violence was attempted many times and ended up with survivors agreeing to centralize it again. And maybe that was what Kant had in mind and then immediately missed it too, instead he argued by property. And yes, private property elevated to moral im…

His entire argument rests on the foundation that he lives in a just society. It's kinda funny. The entire reason for these philosophies and government at large is to solve for externalities: Kingpins, Terrorists, Cancer-causing chemicals, Violence, Street Gangs, Sudden death by falling cranes, madmen with AR-15s, the list goes on forever. You only have the pleasure of being a punk when you have solved for all of thes…

It rests on the foundation that all the things beyond his capacity to care... don't really exist.

Re: Why should I care? Or why punks are correct and old wise philosophers are wrong

#28

Post by bondarchuk » Sun, May 11, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #25

bondarchuk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions that.

No, the article does not mention that it completely dismisses the rest of The Republic and just name drops Plato while deliberately ignoring one of his main points. It's particularly bad in this case because the remaining books of The Republic are basically a long reply to the aporetic ending of the first book. It's intellectually lazy and rude. Don't grab quotes out of context to make a point the author never made,…

No worries, that's what we're here for ;) I thought the text right after the quote makes it sufficiently clear that this is the losing side of a socratic dialogue but I can see your point.