Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Share
паће

Posts : 17626
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : Outest space!

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by паће on Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:38 am

А пропао Дарвина, мислим да он јесте доказао постојање еволуције и открио неке аспекте њеног механизма. Много сумњам у оно преживљавање најспособнијих (јебача), идеју о алфа мужјаку, и нарочито социјални дарвинизам. И овај твој лепо каже да тек треба да откријемо какви смо то, а двеста година дарвинистичке пропаганде о еволуцији као, јеботе, тржишту и конкуренцији такође доводи у сумњу ту где каже "cooperation rather than competition".

Меншчини да је г. Дарвин у своје тумачење механизма еволуције унео много свог класног светоназора, вероватно са циљем да на крају докаже да су господари еволуирали изнад сиротиње и да то тако треба, то је нама наша природа дала. А то се онда двеста година ткало у друге идеје и подоста утицало на разне стране.


_____
Сендвич за зубе!
Where are you taking all those looks?
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:05 pm

Ako te interesuje detaljnije, imaš u knjizi Avaj, jadni Darvin o savremenim saznanjima biologije, psihologije i povezanih disciplina na tu temu.

Jedno poglavlje iz knjige od Bilje Stojković, doktorke bioloških nauka i profesorke na UB.
U ovom tekstu smo do sada pratili liniju kritike evolucione psihologije koja je predstavljena u knjizi Avaj, jadni Darvin. Veoma raznovrstan profesionalni sastav autora knjige, od biologa različitih specijalnosti, sociologa, antropologa, psihologa, filozofa, do osnivača multidisciplinarnog postmodernističkog pokreta, otkriva opštedruštvenu potrebu za kritikom ovog istraživačkog programa. Ipak, mora se primetiti da mnogi elementi navedenih kritika ne dolaze iz ugla profesije, već političke ideologije, koja ujedinjuje sve autore zastupljene u ovom zborniku – levičarska intelektualna orijentacija. Iako sasvim legitimno i neophodno, ovakvo stanovište obeleženo je velikim nedostatkom naučno zasnovanih argumenata. Vreme je za kritiku kritičara!



Kao i Biološki determinizam u društvenoj praksi

Uporedna istorija prirodnih i društvenih nauka nedvosmisleno oslikava jake uticaje koje prirodnjačke paradigme imaju na razumevanje društva. Povezanost između prirodnjačkog i humanističkog aspekta saznavanja sveta je, međutim, refleksivna – cirkularna u pokušaju da se odgonetne u kojoj meri razumevanje prirodnih zakona oblikuje naše sagledavanje socijalnih kretanja, a koliko društvena ideologija utiče na formiranje temeljnih pretpostavki o prirodi. Prema Marksu i Engelsu, ideje i verovanja nisu primarni pokretači istorije: sve što pokreće čoveka mora proći kroz njegov um, ali um i idejni produkti nisu metafizički entiteti koji postoje van konteksta, već su zavisni od uslova u kojima nastaju. Dakle, svi umni konstrukti, a samim tim i nauka o prirodi, jesu kontingentni vladajućim društvenim normama i percepcijama. Koliko god je naučna metodologija ideološki nepristrasna, društvena stremljenja utiru put interpretaciji činjenica, usmeravaju naučne zaključke i, ukratko, oblikuju naše temeljne pretpostavke o svemu što nas okružuje. Intelektualni okvir u kom se konstituiše nauka utiče na izbor podataka koje ćemo prikupljati i na determinisanje pravaca razvoja svake naučne discipline.

U daljem tekstu, opisaćemo tesnu međuzavisnost između našeg razumevanja prirode, s jedne, i društvenih odnosa, s druge strane, koristeći primer višedimenzionalne percepcije različitosti između ljudi. Ljudska vrsta je specifična po tome što se u njoj preklapaju dva podjednako važna životna aspekta - čovek kao biološki i kao društveni organizam, sa svim karakteristikama kulture, svesti, morala, pitanja smisla, strepnji, emocija, koje se na različite načine mogu razumeti iz prirodnjačke i humanističke perspektive. Najčešći teološki odgovor na pitanje dualnosti čoveka podrazumeva natprirodno stvaranje ljudske duše gde se duhovnost nalazi van materije (biologije), a različitost između ljudi odražava svetost božje kreacije, kao, na primer, razlika između muškarca i žene – Adama i Eve. S druge strane, pokušaji materijalističkog objašnjenja ljudske dualnosti označeni su dubokim problemom redukcionističkog pristupa u kom se svaki kulturološki i socijalni aspekt pojedinca i čovečanstva sagledava kao manifestacija bioloških osobina naše vrste. Između dva ekstrema, dogmatski duhovnog i apsolutno prirodnjačkog, pronalazimo različita rešenja koja su obeležila ne samo društvene nauke, već i društvene ideologije uključene u oblikovanje socijalnih odnosa i brojne istorijske događaje. Dakle, pitanje “ljudske prirode” daleko je prevazišlo akademske okvire i odražava se na svakodnevni život od početaka civilizacije kakvu poznajemo. Kao biolog, prevashodno ću prikazati načine na koje je ova prirodno-naučna disciplina uticala na formiranje društvenih ideologija, a pre svega na socijalnu percepciju različitosti. Ipak, osvrnuću se i na situacije u kojima su politika i humanističke nauke (zlo)upotrebljavale biologiju u odbrani divljeg rasizma i nacionalizma i utemeljenju (kvazi)naučne diskriminacije zasnovane na pripadnosti određenoj socijalnoj grupi.
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:21 pm

Evo i Pjera Klastra.

„Primitivna društva nemaju državu zato što je država kod njih nemoguća“, a ne zato što ljudi u njima nisu svesni te opcije, ponavlja uporno Pjer Klastr (Pierre Clastres, Društvo protiv države).


„Ona neprestano razdvajaju vlast od svake institucije vlasti.“ (Govor kao obaveza)

Da je bila reč samo o blaženom neznanju, na te kulture bismo danas verovatno gledali kao na zanimljive sociološki kuriozitete, koji odbrojavaju svoje poslednje dane. Ovako, njihov primer ne prestaje da zapanjuje. Nije reč o tome da te kulture nemaju državu, odnosno da u njima nema vlasti odvojene od zajednice, već o nečemu što imaju: celoj sferi društvenih običaja i praksi koji sprečavaju odnose bazirane na moći i nejednakosti. Za naš um, naviknut na hijerarhiju i potčinjavanje, to predstavlja skoro nerešiv rebus.

Iako pitanje nastanka države i dalje ostaje bez pravog odgovora, još uvek možemo, kako to kaže Klastr, da posmatramo uslove koji sprečavaju njen nastanak. Primitivne kulture pružaju nam upravo tu mogućnost:

„Nema sumnje da će nam samo pažljivo istraživanje funkcionisanja primitivnih društava omogućiti da rasvetlimo to pitanje. A ta svetlost, usmerena na trenutak rođenja države, možda će nam pomoći da sagledamo i mogućnost (ostvarljivu ili ne) njene konačne smrti.“ (Vlast u primitivnom društvu)


https://anarhisticka-biblioteka.net/library/pierre-clastres-drustvo-protiv-drzave
https://anarhisticka-biblioteka.net/library/pierre-clastres-vlast-u-primitivnom-drustvu
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:58 pm

Vili, na koji način je Hajdegerov Bitak i vreme filozofija 2SR?
William Murderface

Posts : 49622
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by William Murderface on Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Kao izraz duha vremena i intelektualna priprema za nacizam - veličanje odluke, autentičnosti, tradicije, povratka korenima, odbacivanje nasleđa racionalizma, itd.

When Plessner published a new edition of his book Die verspatete Nation in 1959, he lumped together Schmitt's decisionism and Heidegger's anthropology, ascribing to both the “aestheticizing of politics,” which, in Benjamin's formulation, gave impetus to fascism.[140] Plessner's student Christian Graf von Krockow had a year earlier published the first conclusive work on decisionism in Schmitt, Heidegger, and Jünger. Von Krockow, who quotes the critique of communitarian radicalism from Grenzen (1924) and the “principle of the indecipherability” of the historical from Macht und menschliche Natur (1931), does not mention the interconnections between Plessner's and Schmitt's conceptualizations. We infer indirectly from the introduction what he regards as the differences between the two. In the aftermath of Nietzsche, according to von Krockow, it was not only conceivable but consistent to imagine an individual who throws off all transcendental norms in order to run the risk of his own decisions. Throwing them off, he elevates the burden of existence to the extreme. “For, having renounced all authoritative ties, the individual would find himself surrounded, in normative terms, by ‘nothingness.’” Von Krockow recapitulates the intellectual situation Plessner experienced in 1924 in order to supplement it with an idea that leaves open the possibility of rescuing decisionism in humanistic terms:
Insofar as the humanity of the individual is indicated by his being in the midst of decision, the outermost step would perhaps produce something like humanity as a life form—but it remains a difficult question, whether such a life form is tolerable or even at all possible.[141]


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:27 pm

Aha, tnx.
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:10 pm

Hubert de Montmirail wrote:
a danas su svi porezi i dažbine debelo preko 20%, verovatno negde oko 70% ako se sve sabere

Tih 70% je u odnosu na šta, bruto prihod pojedinca?
Quincy Endicott

Posts : 7387
Join date : 2012-02-10

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by Quincy Endicott on Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:33 pm

da, otprilike tako, rekao bih. PDV, porez na imovinu, socijalno, penziono i zdravstveno + razne takse i naknade za svaki kontakt sa državom, njenim organima ili lokalnom samoupravom. da ne računamo u to profit koji ostvaruju javna preduzeća.


_____
I refuse to feel guilty. Guilt is a destructive emotion and doesn't fit in with my Life Plan.
паће

Posts : 17626
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : Outest space!

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by паће on Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:43 pm

Данас, док смо били на башти, опет пролазе алтернативни еколози са камионом (досад су возили кола са 1 коњем, па распалу ладу с приколицом, па бели комби, сад имају камион) и госпоја се опет дере у мегафон, строго се држећи свих канона заната. Дакле дисторзија до даске, звук пробија, звучи нешто као артудиту са прехладом, пола се не разуме шта каже а у ствари није ни битно, чујеш само "акумулаторе старе фрижидере шпореете замрзиваче перје за старе ново" (перје за младе никад не спомињу, ех).

И онда ми падне на ум да би ладно могла да, истим таквим гласом, чита у мегафон неку филозофску расправу, и да вероватно нико не би ни приметио.


_____
Сендвич за зубе!
Where are you taking all those looks?
ontheotherhand

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2015-02-17

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by ontheotherhand on Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:52 pm

How to change the course of human history (at least, the part that's already happened)


The story we have been telling ourselves about our origins is wrong, and perpetuates the idea of inevitable social inequality. David Graeber and David Wengrow ask why the myth of 'agricultural revolution' remains so persistent, and argue that there is a whole lot more we can learn from our ancestors.

1. In the beginning was the word

For centuries, we have been telling ourselves a simple story about the origins of social inequality. For most of their history, humans lived in tiny egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. Then came farming, which brought with it private property, and then the rise of cities which meant the emergence of civilization properly speaking. Civilization meant many bad things (wars, taxes, bureaucracy, patriarchy, slavery…) but also made possible written literature, science, philosophy, and most other great human achievements.

Almost everyone knows this story in its broadest outlines. Since at least the days of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it has framed what we think the overall shape and direction of human history to be. This is important because the narrative also defines our sense of political possibility. Most see civilization, hence inequality, as a tragic necessity. Some dream of returning to a past utopia, of finding an industrial equivalent to ‘primitive communism’, or even, in extreme cases, of destroying everything, and going back to being foragers again. But no one challenges the basic structure of the story.

There is a fundamental problem with this narrative.

It isn’t true.

Overwhelming evidence from archaeology, anthropology, and kindred disciplines is beginning to give us a fairly clear idea of what the last 40,000 years of human history really looked like, and in almost no way does it resemble the conventional narrative. Our species did not, in fact, spend most of its history in tiny bands; agriculture did not mark an irreversible threshold in social evolution; the first cities were often robustly egalitarian. Still, even as researchers have gradually come to a consensus on such questions, they remain strangely reluctant to announce their findings to the public­ – or even scholars in other disciplines – let alone reflect on the larger political implications. As a result, those writers who are reflecting on the ‘big questions’ of human history – Jared Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, Ian Morris, and others – still take Rousseau’s question (‘what is the origin of social inequality?’) as their starting point, and assume the larger story will begin with some kind of fall from primordial innocence.

Simply framing the question this way means making a series of assumptions, that 1. there is a thing called ‘inequality,’ 2. that it is a problem, and 3. that there was a time it did not exist. Since the financial crash of 2008, of course, and the upheavals that followed, the ‘problem of social inequality’ has been at the centre of political debate. There seems to be a consensus, among the intellectual and political classes, that levels of social inequality have spiralled out of control, and that most of the world’s problems result from this, in one way or another. Pointing this out is seen as a challenge to global power structures, but compare this to the way similar issues might have been discussed a generation earlier. Unlike terms such as ‘capital’ or ‘class power’, the word ‘equality’ is practically designed to lead to half-measures and compromise. One can imagine overthrowing capitalism or breaking the power of the state, but it’s very difficult to imagine eliminating ‘inequality’. In fact, it’s not obvious what doing so would even mean, since people are not all the same and nobody would particularly want them to be.

‘Inequality’ is a way of framing social problems appropriate to technocratic reformers, the kind of people who assume from the outset that any real vision of social transformation has long since been taken off the political table. It allows one to tinker with the numbers, argue about Gini coefficients and thresholds of dysfunction, readjust tax regimes or social welfare mechanisms, even shock the public with figures showing just how bad things have become (‘can you imagine? 0.1% of the world’s population controls over 50% of the wealth!’), all without addressing any of the factors that people actually object to about such ‘unequal’ social arrangements: for instance, that some manage to turn their wealth into power over others; or that other people end up being told their needs are not important, and their lives have no intrinsic worth. The latter, we are supposed to believe, is just the inevitable effect of inequality, and inequality, the inevitable result of living in any large, complex, urban, technologically sophisticated society. That is the real political message conveyed by endless invocations of an imaginary age of innocence, before the invention of inequality: that if we want to get rid of such problems entirely, we’d have to somehow get rid of 99.9% of the Earth’s population and go back to being tiny bands of foragers again. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is to adjust the size of the boot that will be stomping on our faces, forever, or perhaps to wrangle a bit more wiggle room in which some of us can at least temporarily duck out of its way.

Mainstream social science now seems mobilized to reinforce this sense of hopelessness. Almost on a monthly basis we are confronted with publications trying to project the current obsession with property distribution back into the Stone Age, setting us on a false quest for ‘egalitarian societies’ defined in such a way that they could not possibly exist outside some tiny band of foragers (and possibly, not even then). What we’re going to do in this essay, then, is two things. First, we will spend a bit of time picking through what passes for informed opinion on such matters, to reveal how the game is played, how even the most apparently sophisticated contemporary scholars end up reproducing conventional wisdom as it stood in France or Scotland in, say, 1760. Then we will attempt to lay down the initial foundations of an entirely different narrative. This is mostly ground-clearing work. The questions we are dealing with are so enormous, and the issues so important, that it will take years of research and debate to even begin understanding the full implications. But on one thing we insist. Abandoning the story of a fall from primordial innocence does not mean abandoning dreams of human emancipation – that is, of a society where no one can turn their rights in property into a means of enslaving others, and where no one can be told their lives and needs don’t matter. To the contrary. Human history becomes a far more interesting place, containing many more hopeful moments than we’ve been led to imagine, once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there.

Re: Hobs, filozofija i svašta

Post by Sponsored content

    Similar topics

    -

    Current date/time is Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:56 am