hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
So basically, the only way you can have a non manufactured experience is to risk your life. Except you can do that in a manufactured society every day.
I can walk in front of traffic and get a non manufactured experience.
But again, it seems you've another contradiction in your argument, for your argument is that people aren't socially engaged, aren't "genuinely connected" yet....if people in a group are sharing similar brain wave patterns due to their social relatedness in a group, doesn't that pretty well completely refute your argument that they aren't "genuinely connected"? Indeed it does, because the only metric which can possibly be applied to genuine connectedness is how in sync two brains are with one another. You're literally pointing to the one thing that could be considered genuine connectedness and calling it false because you say so.
This is false.
1. You can't solve all human needs and will never be able to. The more human needs you solve, the more human needs will exist.
2. The premise is that modern human social interactions aren't genuine because...manufacturing.
Your conclusion...not supported by your premise. At all.
Its a conclusion without justification.
Two final points.
1. I find it hilarious that a person who quotes Marx chapter and verse tries to discredit the literally hundreds of millions of manhours worth of research conducted over the past 150 years by social scientists, virtually all since the 60s avowed and open Marxists, people who literally went into the social sciences because they read Marx, agreed with his premises and wanted to be directly involved in actual change in people's lives for the positive. People who revolutionized their fields through investment of decades of their lives to research from a Marxist and critical theory perspective, people like Margaret Mead, Claude Levi-Strausse, Boaz, and many many others, far too many to mention at once, when you yourself aren't involved in any research fields and are not actively involved in the real socialist movements of our day, which are entirely built up in the social science departments at our universities.
2. Going back to the fact that social scientists want to create positive change for people. Positive change does not include eschewing our modern society and arrogantly disregarding the feelings, intellectual capacity and lifestyles of the very people they desire to help. Your argument necessarily engages in exactly that sentiment, that others opinions and feelings aren't valid, aren't real, aren't worthy, aren't right, and can't be regarded as truth. Anthropology, especially cultural anthropology, inspired by Marxist doctrine, emphasizes the exact opposite. It emphasizes that individual experiences, lifestyles, relationships and beliefs are, in fact, valid, real, worthy, and most importantlytruthful to the person who holds them.
You could learn a lot from a couple of good cultural anthropology courses. Most importantly how to recognize that others have a right to be heard, to have their opinions and feelings regarded as valid and real things, truth in their perspective, even if it is not in yours. That's really the beauty of anthropology as a field, and what drew me to it, it is holistic, it incorporates every facet of our lives and reality, our culture, our environment, our biology, the interactions between these things and more, into a cohesive whole. That sort of mindset is necessary to comprehend these issues in totality.
Otherwise you end up with a slice of the pie view like you have, with only very slim slivers of the pie being extrapolated out as the whole pie, when the whole pie is the result of billions and trillions of those little slices all compounded over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. When you move out, from the micro to the macro, you begin to see that what's happening is our species is, as always, evolving.
I can walk in front of traffic and get a non manufactured experience.
Right, nothing anyone else does is valid or real because you said so. Nothing matters except your criteria because...you said so. I know you won't see the arrogance of your statements, but others will, hence why I'm pointing them out. And its anthropology biology and chemistry. What I find funniest about your attempts to discredit anthropology is, of course, its only the most Marxist of all the social sciences. Maybe you should actually look into what post processualism is, how it came about. Interesting to note is its emphasis on...subjectivity of research, and how to mitigate subjectivity bias through the inclusion of multiple viewpoints and fields of study. Its pretty enlightening. Had you had any classes in it, you'd realize how much further the entire social sciences field has moved in the 150 years since Marx. Its a bit like biology and how much its moved forward in the 150 years since Darwin.
This is contradictory, you can't fix an illness if you refuse to recognize the disease.
Sure is blanket statement trying to be applied to 7 billion people at once.
No, the social psychology of people changes from one person to the next. Because people are individuals. In fact, research into this exact area has been conducted extensively between groups of tribes in Africa and other social settings globally and what they find is that people really do feel and behave and interact differently based on their settings. The idea that social psychology is uniform in a world as diverse as to have tribes in the jungle who've never contacted the modern world all the way to gangs in the inner city to the upper echelons of corporate institutions and government institutions, etc. is hilariously bad social science.
I'm going to have to ask: When have you looked at ANYONE'S brain to come to this conclusion? Are you a neuroscientist? Engage in research in the field? Have you attached electrodes to people's brains? No? Then it sounds to me like you're talking out of your ass. But by all means, please, show us CAT scans and the like of the brains of 7 billion people and show how they are all the same and show us the studies which correlate this effect with depression and unhappiness and I'll believe you.
But again, it seems you've another contradiction in your argument, for your argument is that people aren't socially engaged, aren't "genuinely connected" yet....if people in a group are sharing similar brain wave patterns due to their social relatedness in a group, doesn't that pretty well completely refute your argument that they aren't "genuinely connected"? Indeed it does, because the only metric which can possibly be applied to genuine connectedness is how in sync two brains are with one another. You're literally pointing to the one thing that could be considered genuine connectedness and calling it false because you say so.
I'd say the definition of a sheep is simply someone who is easily manipulated.
We have been listening to your words. Your words are: Modern society is fake and every experience you have in it is less valid simply by the fact that it was manufactured by people. This can lead to a justified sense of depression and therefore justify suicide
This is false.
No, its really not, in fact its more real, because that companies' stock has a real impact on the lives of other humans, while tree bark is relevant only to the tree.
No, I'm really not. Your point is that modern society is fake and leads to the creation of fake people with fake lives and fake experiences. Its the argument of an arrogant condescending person who does not and will not give anyone but themselves credit for having an actual intellectual thought.
Gonna need to see some citation, again, real peer reviewed research that shows that the more products a person owns, the less happy and more unhealthy they are.
Funny, didn't you just say that people choosing to take the easy path were the ones living false, unhappy lives? Yet here you are, telling me I should just take the easier path to assume that your worldview of hyper pessimism is "truth" simply because you said so.
Yes, ultimately, you are, because the society we live in is the end result of hundreds of thousands of years of tool use and making. Commoditization of material reality is the end result of tool making and utilization. Money, homes, cars, jobs, its all because we make tools.
Seriously. What the fuck does this mean? What the fuck do the words "genuine relatedness to the world and to each other through direct experience" MEAN? Its nice words, but meaningless fluff.
1. You can't solve all human needs and will never be able to. The more human needs you solve, the more human needs will exist.
2. The premise is that modern human social interactions aren't genuine because...manufacturing.
Your conclusion...not supported by your premise. At all.
Its a conclusion without justification.
Plato was, of course, not someone a person who has read Plato would actually want to be compared to, since he was a totalitarian and a lover of the elites of his day, an apologist for them, effectively someone who regularly supported the domination of the proles by the elites. Further "Humans aren't having real lives because everything they use and have is manufactured" is the very definition of a naturalist fallacy. That because manufacted goods and human society aren't "natural" in the sense that you've defined them (again, false premise, humans are an integral part of nature and everything we do is simply manipulating nature, not fundamentally altering it into something new) they are bad and a negative influence on our lives. You literally couldn't get more naturalist fallacy if you shit pine cones.
To the pessimist of course everything appears to be superficial bullshit. That's because you've chosen to see only the worse parts of the world and society out of context with everything else.
No, there aren't, health is not subjective, it is relative to the individual in question, your ideal weight, your ideal calorie consumption, the particulars of your genetics, it all plays a part and what is objectively a healthy state for you is not objectively a healthy state for another.
Two final points.
1. I find it hilarious that a person who quotes Marx chapter and verse tries to discredit the literally hundreds of millions of manhours worth of research conducted over the past 150 years by social scientists, virtually all since the 60s avowed and open Marxists, people who literally went into the social sciences because they read Marx, agreed with his premises and wanted to be directly involved in actual change in people's lives for the positive. People who revolutionized their fields through investment of decades of their lives to research from a Marxist and critical theory perspective, people like Margaret Mead, Claude Levi-Strausse, Boaz, and many many others, far too many to mention at once, when you yourself aren't involved in any research fields and are not actively involved in the real socialist movements of our day, which are entirely built up in the social science departments at our universities.
2. Going back to the fact that social scientists want to create positive change for people. Positive change does not include eschewing our modern society and arrogantly disregarding the feelings, intellectual capacity and lifestyles of the very people they desire to help. Your argument necessarily engages in exactly that sentiment, that others opinions and feelings aren't valid, aren't real, aren't worthy, aren't right, and can't be regarded as truth. Anthropology, especially cultural anthropology, inspired by Marxist doctrine, emphasizes the exact opposite. It emphasizes that individual experiences, lifestyles, relationships and beliefs are, in fact, valid, real, worthy, and most importantlytruthful to the person who holds them.
You could learn a lot from a couple of good cultural anthropology courses. Most importantly how to recognize that others have a right to be heard, to have their opinions and feelings regarded as valid and real things, truth in their perspective, even if it is not in yours. That's really the beauty of anthropology as a field, and what drew me to it, it is holistic, it incorporates every facet of our lives and reality, our culture, our environment, our biology, the interactions between these things and more, into a cohesive whole. That sort of mindset is necessary to comprehend these issues in totality.
Otherwise you end up with a slice of the pie view like you have, with only very slim slivers of the pie being extrapolated out as the whole pie, when the whole pie is the result of billions and trillions of those little slices all compounded over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. When you move out, from the micro to the macro, you begin to see that what's happening is our species is, as always, evolving.
