Philosophy thread

[CJSchneider]

Sorry to have left the conversation so abruptly earlier. I was issued a subpoena last week, and I had to leave school early to go to juvenile court (What Fun!) A kid who got in a fight that I had to be a witness to (the other parent sued for damages).

So, to jump right in to this again, someone say something, and if I disagree, I will prove you wrong.:D

[someone447]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

So, the possession of things has been a way of ranking status since "the beginning of mankind?"

Got it.

Ok, prove it.

Well, my words were "dawn of civilization"(meaning when man started farming and forming cities.) I won't go as far as to say that it possessions ranked status during the times of the hunter/gatherers, because they weren't really able to have any possessions when they were constantly on the move.

The "Big Man" in a tribe was almost always the most wealthy person, if he didn't start out that way he became it shortly after. People would give him gifts in order to gain his favor, he would have more wives, a bigger house, more food, and more servants than anyone else in the village. He got the most booty when another tribe was plundered, granted we can't know without a doubt that is the case, but it is our best guess based on studies of modern stone and bronze age people.

[Manic Depressant]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

So, the possession of things has been a way of ranking status since "the beginning of mankind?"

Got it.

Ok, prove it.

Status has always been given to those who control scarce resources. If we're talking about "the beginning of mankind", you could look at the "provider" (person who hunts, forages, etc.) as the person who controls scarce resources. That person has always had higher status than say a woman who doesn't have the physical ability to hunt effectively and hence doesn't control scarce resources.

On another note...

Maybe I missed it, but did you ever prove this statement:

The vast VAST majority of people who succeed in this world do so to a very small degree because of their individual talents.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by Manic Depressant

Status has always been given to those who control scarce resources. If we're talking about "the beginning of mankind", you could look at the "provider" (person who hunts, forages, etc.) as the person who controls scarce resources. That person has always had higher status than say a woman who doesn't have the physical ability to hunt effectively and hence doesn't control scarce resources.

On another note...

Maybe I missed it, but did you ever prove this statement:

there is no example ever for someone that succeeded just because of his individual talents.

[Manic Depressant]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

there is no example ever for someone that succeeded just because of his individual talents.

I never said there was...

[CJSchneider]

So, the possession of things has been a way of ranking status since "the beginning of mankind?"

Got it.

Ok, prove it.

Wasn't it the alpha male that carried the club?

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by Manic Depressant

I never said there was...

i know but he stated why people wouldnt succeed because of only that.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Manic Depressant

Status has always been given to those who control scarce resources. If we're talking about "the beginning of mankind", you could look at the "provider" (person who hunts, forages, etc.) as the person who controls scarce resources. That person has always had higher status than say a woman who doesn't have the physical ability to hunt effectively and hence doesn't control scarce resources.

On another note...

Maybe I missed it, but did you ever prove this statement:

It became a circular argument. You see things from your perspective, I see things from mine. You're either being cynical or dense.

In terms of the previous statement, I find it interesting that these are "our best guesses based on modern stone and bronze age people." My girlfriend has a PhD in archeology, so I'm assuming she would be part of the "our." I've never heard her mention "modern stone age people," and I honestly have no idea what that means either, unless you're equating contemporary "third world" societies with those hundreds of thousands of years prior.

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

there is no example ever for someone that succeeded just because of his individual talents.

Are you saying that along with talent, there must be a unique opportunity to express it, and that therefor it is both talent and opportunity that yields success?

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I'm not sure what a 'true philosopher' is, but I think any theologian can be considered a philosopher, particularly in the Middle Ages when there was no distinction.

I was skeptical because of who you had listen with " ancients", Plato and Aristotle. In Antony's " life" the author does refer to the Platonist as "Greek philosophers" and makes a point to distinguish himself from them as philosophers... It's difficult for me to differentiate between what it means to be theologian and philosopher to a degree.http://homepage.mac.com/hermetic1/Li...f%20Antony.pdf

Augustine of Hippo my favorite, along with St. Anthony and Origen. Although, admittedly, I'm not extremely familiar with any of them.

I really would like to find the time to brush up on some of the more Eastern ( as in Eastern Christian) guys myself, especially the Cappadocian fathers, in particular Gregory of Nyssa.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

Are you saying that along with talent, there must be a unique opportunity to express it, and that therefor it is both talent and opportunity that yields success?

its the situation u are born in, there are so many factors u cant control like what school u get in, what teachers u get and what system u are born in to. it is not a society that rewards the people that work hard

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

its the situation u are born in, there are so many factors u cant control like what school u get in, what teachers u get and what system u are born in to. it is not a society that rewards the people that work hard

In that I agree.

[Manic Depressant]

bearsfan_51 is master of the straw man.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

it is not a society that rewards the people that work hard

Reward can be more than social status and what you receive physically from others. A reward can be in the eye of the beholder and will not always be present in terms of wealth, occupation, or " school prestige". Someone who feels the need to be rewarded with things like that can be weak an insecure.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Reward can be more than social status and what you receive physically from others. A reward can be in the eye of the beholder and will not always be present in terms of wealth, occupation, or " school prestige". Someone who feels the need to be rewarded with things like that can be weak an insecure.

it can be, what i mean though is getting wealthy

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Reward can be more than social status and what you receive physically from others. A reward can be in the eye of the beholder and will not always be present in terms of wealth, occupation, or " school prestige". Someone who feels the need to be rewarded with things like that can be weak an insecure.

I agree with what you are saying, but isn't that more of a reward you give yourself, and not one you receive from society?

[Manic Depressant]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

its the situation u are born in, there are so many factors u cant control like what school u get in, what teachers u get and what system u are born in to. it is not a society that rewards the people that work hard

You're right, it isn't a society that rewards people for working hard. It's a society that rewards people based on the value they offer others. Bill Gates is rich because he offers a lot of value to others. The guy who takes your orders at McDonald's isn't becasue he offers little value to others.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

Are you saying that along with talent, there must be a unique opportunity to express it, and that therefor it is both talent and opportunity that yields success?

You think Walden would have been written if Thoreau couldn't hangout on someone Emerson's property for an extended period of time for free? Could John Reed have written Ten Days that Shook the World if he wasnt in Soviet Russia? Circumstance always yields success.

Side-note: I find it funny that he preaches self-sufficiency during the novel all while mooching off Emerson. And yes I know those are poor examples.

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by Manic Depressant

You're right, it isn't a society that rewards people for working hard. It's a society that rewards people based on the value they offer others. Bill Gates is rich because he offers a lot of value to others. The guy who takes your orders at McDonald's isn't becasue he offers little value to others.

I'd modify that to the perceived value. Small change big difference IMO.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by Manic Depressant

You're right, it isn't a society that rewards people for working hard. It's a society that rewards people based on the value they offer others. Bill Gates is rich because he offers a lot of value to others. The guy who takes your orders at McDonald's isn't becasue he offers little value to others.

how does a GM have 100000x more value than a nurse? how do u even compare such a thing?

[MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)]

What about pro athletes? Say, LeBron James? He's the best basketball player in the world NOT because of his individual talents+skills?

[MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

how does a GM have 100000x more value than a nurse? how do u even compare such a thing?

60,000 people aren't shelling out hundreds of dollars to watch a nurse, and then buy hospital merchandise.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by slightlyabroncosfan

What about pro athletes? Say, LeBron James? He's the best basketball player in the world NOT because of his individual talents+skills?

lets say he was raised in a family that wants him to play golf or a ****** coach that just hates black kids/never lets him play

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

I agree with what you are saying, but isn't that more of a reward you give yourself, and not one you receive from society?

From the majority of society yes, but there will always be those who appreciate things you do other than those that are viewed as "admirable" by the mass. In actuality, many of the things that are viewed as "admirable"( wealth power, etcetera ) by most are viewed as vices by those who truly have admirable qualities themslves.

If you still don't understand ,It's a gnostic club. I wish you could join, but you can't...

Also, I find the enlightenment to be full of crap and Lebron James sucks. :)

[Manic Depressant]

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

I'd modify that to the perceived value. Small change big difference IMO.

Agreed. It's the same concept as something being worth what somebody else is willing to pay for it.