One vs. the Many

[Marcus]

The future we face at the dawn of the twenty-first century is, like all futures left to themselves, "emergent, complex messiness." Its "messiness" lies not in disorder, but in an order that is unpredictable, spontaneous, and ever shifting, a pattern created by millions of uncoordinated, independent decisions. That pattern contains not just a few high-tech gizmos, but all the variegated aspects of life. As people create and sell products or services, adopt new fashions of speech or dress, form families and choose home towns, make medical decisions and seek spiritual insights, investigate the universe and invent new forms of art, these actions shape a future no one can see, a future that is dynamic and inherently unstable.

That instability, or our awareness of it, is heightened by the fluidity of contemporary life: by the ease with which ideas and messages, goods and people, cross borders; by technologies that seek to surpass the quickness of the human mind and overcome the constraints of the human body; by the "universal solvents" of commerce and popular culture; by the dissolution or reformation of established institutions, particularly large corporations, and the rise of new ones; by the synthesis of East and West, of ancient and modern—by the combination and recombination of seemingly every artifact of human culture. Ours is a magnificently creative era. But that creativity produces change, and that change attracts enemies, philosophical as well as self-interested. . . .

An unabashedly dynamist work, The Future and Its Enemies devotes most of its pages to limning the dynamic vision, which has rarely been articulated in full. It does not pretend to invent that vision from scratch or claim to discover new truths for a new age. In true dynamist fashion, it builds on the knowledge and experience of the past to better understand how dynamic systems work in general—and how, therefore, they work in our own particular time, place, and circumstances. It unites the work of scholars from many different fields and relates them to the textures of life in an evolving world, past, present, and future. . .

Stasist social criticism—which is to say essentially all current social criticism—brings up the specifics of life only to sneer at or bash them. Critics assume that readers will share their attitudes and will see contemporary life as a problem demanding immediate action by the powerful and wise. This relentlessly hostile view of how we live, and how we may come to live, is distorted and dangerous. It overvalues the tastes of an articulate elite, compares the real world of trade-offs to fantasies of utopia, omits important details and connections, and confuses temporary growing pains with permanent catastrophes. It demoralizes and devalues the creative minds on whom our future depends. And it encourages the coercive use of political power to wipe out choice, forbid experimentation, shortcircuit feedback, and trammel progress.

—from The Future and Its Enemies

[Zack Morris]

Those are good points, Marcus, but there must be a balance between an organized society in which we give up some autonomy and freedom. This balance must shift with the circumstances. In an ever more inter-dependent world, surely some restrictions on "experimentation" are inevitable. Public health is one such area.

[Zack Morris]

Those are good points, Marcus, but there must be a balance between an organized society in which we give up some autonomy and freedom. This balance must shift with the circumstances. In an ever more inter-dependent world, surely some restrictions on "experimentation" are inevitable. Public health is one such area.

And that's a good point too, Zack . . how do we handle the tension between the One and the Many.

On a case-by-case basis. Westerners have this obsession with devising coherent all-encompassing philosophies. It's the intellectual equivalent of centrally-planned communism.

[Enki]

Those are good points, Marcus, but there must be a balance between an organized society in which we give up some autonomy and freedom. This balance must shift with the circumstances. In an ever more inter-dependent world, surely some restrictions on "experimentation" are inevitable. Public health is one such area.

And that's a good point too, Zack . . how do we handle the tension between the One and the Many.

On a case-by-case basis. Westerners have this obsession with devising coherent all-encompassing philosophies. It's the intellectual equivalent of centrally-planned communism.

Good one.

Typhoon/YMix can we move The Good of the many versus the needs of the individual to its own thread in Philosophy?

[YMix]

Done.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour. Some though, can't participate in a share holder position and are left with sustenance living on either meagre resources or on a dole, as the cost of the good things; like a house, new car or college degree rises above their ability or willingness to pay. Poor societies are more equal societies, but there aren't many where the cost of living is a dollar a day that we would consider good societies........

[Ibrahim]

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour.

Your conflation of "freedom" with "material comfort" is distressing.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

uhm..... that's the way people look at things.......

More so than 'material comfort' what is valued is, 'having options'. Taking a job one likes over one just to pay the bills because one isn't living paycheck-to-paycheck. Sending the kids to the really good private school. Taking an extended vacation or travelling to see the world. 'Material comfort' tends to remove one from material concerns, as one is not reduced to functioning on the most basic needs. Freedom is not being driven by necessity, as opposed to being a janissary following adequately paid work to any random part of the country that happens to be offering it, for as long as they're offering it - until they are not anymore.......'>.........

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour.

I think I need to amend that a bit for accuracy's sake:

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them over time through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour..........

[Ibrahim]

uhm..... that's the way people look at things.......

Which people are you speaking for in this instance?

More so than 'material comfort' what is valued is, 'having options'.

Not so, people frequently opt for comfort over options.

Taking a job one likes over one just to pay the bills because one isn't living paycheck-to-paycheck. Sending the kids to the really good private school. Taking an extended vacation or travelling to see the world. 'Material comfort' tends to remove one from material concerns, as one is not reduced to functioning on the most basic needs. Freedom is not being driven by necessity.......

Again, this definition of "freedom" is so shallow and crass I can only assume you have adopted it from a credit card commercial.

[YMix]

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them over time through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour..........

All of them?

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Well, I can't speak for everyone and I have to characterise a viewpoint broader than my own........

Tying this discussion to the topic, I'm arguing that freedom isn't an act of will for most people. It's getting a chance to live and explore life, to develop one's latent possibilities and to go down paths one wouldn't have thought of earlier. For most Americans freedom isn't merely free will. The pursuit of happiness and a life well-lived is a cooperative effort of like-minded individuals engaged in compatible pursuits that expands one's pile of options rather than diminish them. We live in a share-holding society that uses capitalism as the prevalent managing strategy of the economy......

All of them?

Americans share a flaw common with many other people in that they are not good enough to be saints, martyrs or possibly gods - for those, simply willing one's will is freedom enough. They want to be happy, dammit....'>..........

it's an epicurean thing, what can I say.....;P.........

[Enki]

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour.

Your conflation of "freedom" with "material comfort" is distressing.

I think the 'freedom' comes from the lack of worker lock in. I am not a slave to my employer because I can leave that job and go work somewhere else. That's really the essence of what freedom means in America, I am not owned by any one person, though through debt I may be owned by a consortium of shareholders, but their ability to determine my activity is limited. If I have a good job that allows me to pay down my debt, they don't get to tell me I have to work a different one.

[Ibrahim]

All our freedoms comes from the fact we are a share-holder society and are willing to leverage our wealth and prosperity through savings, mortgages, loans, bonds and pensions - and pay for them through our productive work with the goods and services from that labour.

Your conflation of "freedom" with "material comfort" is distressing.

I think the 'freedom' comes from the lack of worker lock in. I am not a slave to my employer because I can leave that job and go work somewhere else. That's really the essence of what freedom means in America, I am not owned by any one person, though through debt I may be owned by a consortium of shareholders, but their ability to determine my activity is limited. If I have a good job that allows me to pay down my debt, they don't get to tell me I have to work a different one.

I think even this is slightly too deferential to commercial interests for my taste. What are debts? Berlioz compared them to "Turkish cannon, which [in that historical period] make a great noise but cause to real damage." If this is the philosophy forum and we are speaking in terms somewhat detached from crudest practicality, then freedom or free will is something so much more radical than consumer or worker choices. Not only are you not a slave, and so can work for A, B, or C, you can also become Bartleby the Scrivener, or the Joker, or a Mountain Man. You don't need to participate in the prevailing economic system at all, which is precisely the freedom that a prevailing economic system doesn't want you to think that you have.

[Marcus]

. . I am not owned by any one person, though through debt I may be owned by a consortium of shareholders, but their ability to determine my activity is limited. . .

"You" are not owned; what is "owned" is a portion of your labor. Nothing more.

[Farcus]

uhm..... that's the way people look at things.......

The "Family Feud Standard" of philosophy, where we try to guess the most popular answers?
There seems more to this than simple blind conformity, but I can't find it. Is there a prize if you get all the answers right?

[Marcus]

. . I'm arguing that freedom isn't an act of will for most people. It's getting a chance to live and explore life, to develop one's latent possibilities and to go down paths one wouldn't have thought of earlier. For most Americans freedom isn't merely free will. The pursuit of happiness and a life well-lived is a cooperative effort of like-minded individuals engaged in compatible pursuits that expands one's pile of options rather than diminish them. We live in a share-holding society that uses capitalism as the prevalent managing strategy of the economy......

Freedom, for an Atheist, must certainly mean "freedom from God," while freedom for a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian or Mormon must certainly mean "freedom to serve God."

[Ibrahim]

. . I'm arguing that freedom isn't an act of will for most people. It's getting a chance to live and explore life, to develop one's latent possibilities and to go down paths one wouldn't have thought of earlier. For most Americans freedom isn't merely free will. The pursuit of happiness and a life well-lived is a cooperative effort of like-minded individuals engaged in compatible pursuits that expands one's pile of options rather than diminish them. We live in a share-holding society that uses capitalism as the prevalent managing strategy of the economy......

Freedom, for an Atheist, must certainly mean "freedom from God," while freedom for a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian or Mormon must certainly mean "freedom to serve God."

Nope.

[Parodite]

Freedom, for an Atheist, must certainly mean "freedom from God," while freedom for a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian or Mormon must certainly mean "freedom to serve God."

Depends on the type of God one doesn't believe in?

[Marcus]

Freedom, for an Atheist, must certainly mean "freedom from God," while freedom for a Jew or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian or Mormon must certainly mean "freedom to serve God."

Depends on the type of God one doesn't believe in?

Ummmmm . . . how many types are there, and how would such supposed types make a difference? . .

If God's not there, who cares?

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

uhm..... that's the way people look at things.......

The "Family Feud Standard" of philosophy, where we try to guess the most popular answers?
There seems more to this than simple blind conformity, but I can't find it. Is there a prize if you get all the answers right?

We live in a subjective reality of our own existence, but that experience is impacted by the collective existences, experiences and choice-decisions of others. The "One vs. the Many", indeed.....'>.........

Again, this definition of "freedom" is so shallow and crass I can only assume you have adopted it from a credit card commercial.

There is such a distinction between 'freedom' and 'rights', I don't think is appreciated.....'>.........

[Marcus]

Again, this definition of "freedom" is so shallow and crass I can only assume you have adopted it from a credit card commercial.

There is such a distinction between 'freedom' and 'rights', I don't think is appreciated.....'>.........

Well noted, Lizz, there is indeed.

And there's equally a distinction between substantive commentary and caustic, patronizing quips . . . deep stuff:

shvlsht.jpeg (7.34 KiB) Viewed 1299 times

[Ibrahim]

Again, this definition of "freedom" is so shallow and crass I can only assume you have adopted it from a credit card commercial.

There is such a distinction between 'freedom' and 'rights', I don't think is appreciated.....'>.........

Maybe you'd like to expand on that a little bit?

I was talking about freedoms, you've introduced the concept of rights, but your initial comments didn't extend beyond consumer choices.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Both freedom and rights as we know them depend upon a natural law philosophy. Without that starting point, I can't see the conversation getting very far.

[Marcus]

Both freedom and rights as we know them depend upon a natural law philosophy. Without that starting point, I can't see the conversation getting very far.

Interesting thought, Nonc, can you explain the connection as you see it?

I tend to agree simply because for Philosophical-Scientific Materialism there can be no such thing as natural/moral law of any sort beyond survival of the species.

[Enki]

I think even this is slightly too deferential to commercial interests for my taste.

As do I, thus my fundamental issue with Mr. Perfect even though we agree on a lot of things.

What are debts? Berlioz compared them to "Turkish cannon, which [in that historical period] make a great noise but cause to real damage." If this is the philosophy forum and we are speaking in terms somewhat detached from crudest practicality, then freedom or free will is something so much more radical than consumer or worker choices. Not only are you not a slave, and so can work for A, B, or C, you can also become Bartleby the Scrivener, or the Joker, or a Mountain Man. You don't need to participate in the prevailing economic system at all, which is precisely the freedom that a prevailing economic system doesn't want you to think that you have.

But you can't. The very system of property ownership makes true freedom impossible. If I am not free on more than 90% of the land in this country, then how am I free exactly?