Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thank You Adam Smith.
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 124 (347680)
09-08-2006 10:51 PM


I hope we can all agree though, that the list that I made in my OP was undoubtably caused by materialistic desires for man-made currency/power.
If I didn't use Adam Smith in the title, this 'poem' wouldn't have been the same. And probably would not have been controversial, and would require less thinking about.
Smith was a necessity to get my message across I believe.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 09-08-2006 10:56 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 09-08-2006 11:17 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 124 (347682)
09-08-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by joshua221
09-08-2006 10:51 PM


No, can't.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 10:51 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 11:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 108 of 124 (347685)
09-08-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by joshua221
09-08-2006 10:47 PM


Re: This is just about the funniest thing.
Although I stick to my views concerning economics.
Heh. Stick two economists in a room, ask 'em a question about macroeconomic policy, you'll get four completely mutually exclusive answers. Or at least that's been my experience.
But anyway, do read Wealth, and if you can try to look at it as jar mentioned: in the context of the time it was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 10:47 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 09-09-2006 12:46 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 124 (347690)
09-08-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
09-08-2006 10:56 PM


What?
I don't see how you could disagree with that.
The only one that is questionable is nicotine.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 09-08-2006 10:56 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 110 of 124 (347703)
09-08-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by joshua221
09-08-2006 10:51 PM


I hope we can all agree though, that the list that I made in my OP was undoubtably caused by materialistic desires for man-made currency/power.
That's a bit too simple. However, human nature is surely involved. Given that you are human, you are not exempt from that.
Smith was a necessity to get my message across I believe.
It seems that the mention of Smith led the discussion astray. Perhaps you would have seen a more focussed discussion if you blamed it all on "materialistic desires."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 10:51 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 124 (347726)
09-09-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Quetzal
09-08-2006 11:00 PM


Re: This is just about the funniest thing.
Quetzal writes:
But anyway, do read Wealth, and if you can try to look at it as jar mentioned: in the context of the time it was written.
Somehow I doubt it will be done, considering how thick the book is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 11:00 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 2:11 AM Taz has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 112 of 124 (347732)
09-09-2006 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Taz
09-09-2006 12:46 AM


to all those from last night's chat session
I feel like a fool--my library does have it.
it helps if you use the search properly--as in last name, first name.
had I done that--I would have found the book.
quite naturally, there is no Wealth of Nations by Smith Adam.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 09-09-2006 12:46 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 09-09-2006 11:00 AM kuresu has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 124 (347739)
09-09-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by joshua221
09-08-2006 7:25 PM


Thank You EvC
prophex writes:
I created a short paragraph. In this short paragraph I used Adam Smith who has come to represent Capitalism's name.
Phat writes:
They critisized me for promoting this topic. You know what they said. I have a response:
Attention, critics: I don't promote EVERYTHING that either of the twins proposes. They will tell you that. It is true that I am biased towards topics with prophex or messenjah, and that I enjoy dialogue with them. What you folks dont understand, though, is that this topic is NOT about Adam Smith so much as it is about worldly philosophies versus spiritual philosophie.
People asked me if I actually knew anything about Adam Smith. Simple people like CK, and Archer, who I have lost all hope for...
Phat writes:
I am gonna critisize you for referring to these EvC colleagues as simple. CK is an atheist, to be sure, but he has had numerous life experiences which I would have hoped would have contributed positively towards our philosophical discourse. As for Archer, I dont yet know his style well enough to critisize him.
This all may seem ludacris coming from someone who hasn't even read Adam Smith, viewed as a weakness, and milked for all that it was worth by people who would rather focus on my personal credentials, rather than the actual ideas of my initial post.
Phat writes:
and I believe that I KNEW your actual ideas. Thats why I promoted you.
I was told to go read a book, and told that I could not have a decent discussion with someone who is quite blantantly the definition of a simpleton, who can't think outside of what a book based on trivialities has to say.
I am quite amazed at how this all went down. Disgusted actually.
Phat writes:
You have been critisized for coming across as arrogant and critical of others. I empathize with the fact that they don't give you instant respect like I do. You have to earn it with this debate crowd, and they view the lessons as an example of tough love. You know i'm easy on you---but I believe that the type of dialogues that we engage in are conducive to sparking further thought.
Can't you see that economic theory has no bearing on reality, it's an illusion, open your eyes.
Phat writes:
I know where you are coming from on this, but I want to encourage you to move beyond the truths that you know. Even IF I believe certain absolute truths, it never hurts me to expand my thinking and study up a little bit on how the other scholars or critics see an issue.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS POST WASN'T ABOUT YOUR DEAD THEORIES THAT HOLD NO IMPORTANCE IN THE EYES OF GOD, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR SUCKING ME INTO IT, AND BRINGING ME DOWN WITH YOU INTO THE FIERY PITS OF MEANINGLESSNESS, MEDIOCRITY, AND MINDLESSNESS.
Phat writes:
Again, perhaps it IS my fault for promoting this topic and throwing you into the Lions Den of intellectuals. I have yet to hear your personal thoughts on this issue, and this may not be the place to hear them. Its up to you, C.
None of you know anything.. jar was right, this discussion is worthless. You don't deserve me, you don't deserve my thoughts, you don't deserve any of what I can tell you. Because you ignore it as it hits you in the face, you can't comprehend it, and you respond spouting what is fake. You respond with nothing but ignorance, and you claim it is me who is ignorant.
Phat writes:
Go back and read what you just said. Do you really feel that way, or are you just angry that you arn't getting any respect? Lets take ten deep breaths, play a few chords on the guitar, and resume the discussion.
You are most likely going to respond saying I should go read the works of Smith. But there is no brilliance there, there is only emptiness, and false truths.
Phat writes:
Like I said, I knew that you were going deeper than Adam Smith. I viewed your opening post as an emotional bit of song lyrics, actually. The way that I saw your opening post, you were lamenting the blindness of Western Intellect in general--contrasting with the simple truths of Christ. (was that what you were thinking?) Since you were the Topic Starter, tell me (and the audience) where you want this topic to go from here. Do you want to focus on the differences between worldly and spiritual philosophies? I can certainly take us there, if you wish.
Anti-Christ.
I used to feel very frustrated when I attempted to share my beliefs and faith and was dismissed so readily by others. I too lashed out at them and felt as if it was an attack of the Devil. Later, as I actually listened to how others think (even those who have never encountered the Spirit) I became more adept at communicating with all types of people. I am actually glad that I never hung out with the church crowd. (AiG, creationists, and fundamentalists) Truthfully, I don't disagree with much of their theologic philosophy, but yet I DO prefer grinding it out with secular educated philosophies. They told me that I was doing you no favor by promoting this topic, but the motivations that I had and have for promoting this topic were not centered so much on Adam Smith as on philosophy in general.
Lets refocus.
I may critisize your conclusions, but I will never critisize you personally, no matter how much teen overconfidance you appear to have. "They" may not get it, but I think that I do.
P.S. Im just lazy---thats the reason I don't go after some of the other wise ones.
Keep communicating!
Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky.
Edited by Phat, : clarification situation

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” --C.S.Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 7:25 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by CK, posted 09-09-2006 4:47 AM Phat has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 114 of 124 (347740)
09-09-2006 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Phat
09-09-2006 3:54 AM


Re: Thank You EvC
I know it interfers with your grooming but does Charlie does not get a timeout for calling me the "definition of a simpleton"?
Maybe if I put up a picture with a nice smile I get some slack as well, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Phat, posted 09-09-2006 3:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Phat, posted 09-09-2006 10:38 AM CK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 115 of 124 (347741)
09-09-2006 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by joshua221
09-08-2006 8:07 PM


Re: This is just about the funniest thing.
But my ideas were absolutely true
From a philosophy student????????
I hope your philosophy prof doesn't read that.
The problem here is that others are not going to agree with you about Smith just because you say so, you need to convince others with reasoned arguments. I think others get frustrated because some of them know a lot about Smith and are probably very interested in discussing him. But, when you demonstrate that you perhpas don't know a great deal about Smith they become frustrated.
Think about how frustrated you feel when someone doesn't really get what you are putting across to them, although you understand it very well, they struggle and you are amazed that they cannot see what you are on about. Well, that's how people are feeling about this topic. You need to help them understand, if you cannot then it really isn't their fault.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 8:07 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 124 (347771)
09-09-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by CK
09-09-2006 4:47 AM


Re: Thank You EvC
CK writes:
Maybe if I put up a picture with a nice smile I get some slack as well, right?
Depends on what you look like!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by CK, posted 09-09-2006 4:47 AM CK has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 117 of 124 (347774)
09-09-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by kuresu
09-09-2006 2:11 AM


Re: to all those from last night's chat session
I had a brief chat with you last nite, Kuresu. Allow me to elaborate a bit on certain differences in philosophical worldviews.
As a Christian, I have some definite worldviews which I espouse. Some of them are written in my heart, some of them are ones that I chose for the moment but am not unable to change from, and some of them are just stuff that I have learned. Lets discuss them.
  • I had to take a stand on Biblical literalism---in regards to ideas such as original sin, purpose and destiny of ones life, the reality or symbolism of Christ, and what God expects out of me on a day 2 day. [b]Conclusion[b]: I don't believe that Biblical philosophy is word for word literal. I don't believe that the book is without error in regards to absolute accuracy. I DO believe that Jesus Christ is real in not only a symbolic sense (as in a character in a really deep parable) but that Christ is the character behind the book. I don't want to drag us too far off topic, but you have to understand that its not a matter of criticizing Adam Smith without a fair trial so much as it is a matter of critisizing humanity for being full of knowledge yet empty of truth. Your quote says that all a mans knowledge comes from his experiences. I would argue that some knowledge comes from a divine spark of impartation, but I would be unable to prove it to you.
  • As I told prophex when explaining to him why I promoted this post, I assumed that he was not directly blaiming Adam Smith for the ills of modern society so much as he was blaiming modern society for being so darn naive of how unspiritual we really are as a people.
    It may be true that we have invented many things that have improved our lifespans of 80-90 years on Earth, but what have we done to get to reconcile ourselves with the Creator?
    Lets toss in another angle.
    Lets say that you are non-religious. Explain to me then how society is progressing in terms of our purpose, our morality, and our destiny?
    We dont have Adam Smith to thank for our inadequacies. We have ourselves to thank. (pessemistic view)
    So be an optimist! How are we as a society getting any better? Do we have fewer wars or more wars?
    Do we exploit other humans any less than we used to or is it at least the same?
    Capitalism may be the best system that we have or it may not. I certainly don't want to share my money with the third world! Is it I who is the hypocrite? (I know that im selfish)

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 2:11 AM kuresu has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 119 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 2:42 PM Phat has not replied

      
    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5908 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 118 of 124 (347784)
    09-09-2006 12:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by joshua221
    09-08-2006 8:30 PM


    Re: This is just about the funniest thing.
    prophex
    "Rousseau's idea of a common will and understanding within a society to do what is right."
    So do we include abadonment of children in the idea of common will?
    It seemed Rousseau's great ideals did not extend to include his children.
    While this does not negate the validity of the ideas he has it sheds light on the human being behind the Ideals that those ideas seek to address. If we are not willing to live within the confines of our ideals then those ideals are rather useless.
    You are young and the world is fresh to you yet. It is not that your ideas are without merit ,just that they break down upon inspection.
    My ex-Sister-in Law had an arguement with me concerning abortion and how it was a crime and her beliefs {born again Christian} and values could not compromise on such an importnat thing. I mentioned that , for one, I was incapable of forming an opinion since I was ignorant of the facts surrounding the pros and cons, but that I found it particularly telling that she was unable to even begin to explain how we should look after those children should we remove the right to abortion. Her arguement continued to revolve arund the Ideal she had but never to the practical matter that must be faced as a consequence of implementing those ideals.
    In the same way you are feeling under attack for your OP and that you are misunderstood. I have only one thing to add for your disemination and that is; Is the lack of understanding on the part of your students a fault of the pupil or the teacher?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by joshua221, posted 09-08-2006 8:30 PM joshua221 has not replied

      
    kuresu
    Member (Idle past 2513 days)
    Posts: 2544
    From: boulder, colorado
    Joined: 03-24-2006


    Message 119 of 124 (347788)
    09-09-2006 2:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 117 by Phat
    09-09-2006 11:00 AM


    Re: to all those from last night's chat session
    then we won't continue in this off-topic vein after this.
    in case you hadn't figured out, there's no need to suppose I'm non-religious. I am, if not an atheist, an agnostic (the only thing pushing me in that direction is music).
    I don't know how you can say that modern man is spiritually empty (or the good majority of us). If prophex recalls from Siddhartha, the Buddha went through several stages in life just to get to nirvana. One of those stages was living in the materialistic world, falling to the trappings of the materialistic world. So, the materialistic world does have a purpose.
    I don't see why society as a whole has to try and reconcile with the Creator. I think it should be done on an individual basis--you work for you own salvation (however it is that you're supposed to get it), the society as a whole should not work for it. Since when did God judge all of society, and not only each person individually?
    I don't view purpose, morality, and destiny as something the whole society as a team should work for. But in terms of individuals--we have to find each of those things on our own. We have to learn what our purpose is--even if it does take our entire life--at which point all your experiences (including those meaningless jobs) have some meaning. As to morality, I personally tend to follow the utilitarian principle with a dash of Kant--the categorical imperative (yeah--I get how wierd that is). And as to destiny--I think we don't have any set destiny. There's a video game character in FF8 that says this:"Some people say that you an infinite number of choices in the journey of life. I don't think that's true. I got where I am by choosing among the limited paths I had." No set destiny, mind you, but I feel that rings true. We all, individually, live our lives, constrained by the limited choices we have. (on second thought--this paragraph here is kinda confusing)
    Piont put simple--don't blame society for the failings of the individual. Because it is the individual, not the society, that lives, makes his choices, and dies. It is up to each and every one of us to make the right choices (whatever they may be), not society. It is up to us to follow the moral code (again, whatever that may be). And if you think that some people have really screwed things up, that they've made the wrong choices, follow the wrong moral compass, well, don't blame society.
    anywho, if prophex really wanted to criticize the spiritual emptiness in this materialistic world, he should've picked the scumbags from Enron. Or from the tabaccoo industry. or from the congress and senate and government.
    note to prophex--you want to read the philosophers, right? well, Smith is one, and Wealth isn't his only work of philosophy--look 'em up.

    All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 117 by Phat, posted 09-09-2006 11:00 AM Phat has not replied

      
    RickJB
    Member (Idle past 4990 days)
    Posts: 917
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 04-14-2006


    Message 120 of 124 (347790)
    09-09-2006 2:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
    09-05-2006 10:29 AM


    Still in high school?
    The "system" itself is a product of humanity. The "system" IS humanity in all it's violent, competitve, curious, envious, lying, enterprising, caring, selfless, selfish, scientific, spiritual glory.
    As long as humans form groups there will always be a "system".
    Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
    Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
    Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
    Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by joshua221, posted 09-05-2006 10:29 AM joshua221 has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024