Hindsite wrote:The mind is a spiritual component of the soul of man.
That claim assumes you can know the existence and nature of the supernatural. But there's actually no evidence for any such thing.
The brain is the physical component used like a computer by the mind to enter instructions through the nervous system to help control voluntary functions of the physical body.
How does the mind enter those instructions -- physically affect the body -- without itself being physical? You've merely accepted an explanation for consciousness concocted by pre-scientific minds, like the explanation of rainbows as signs from God. Sorry, but I'll need some evidence that these things exist other than in certain people's imaginations.
ingliz wrote:Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived).
<sigh> How can something be perceived without first being?
Berkeley asserts that ideas constitute all existence and this universe of illusion is sustained by God.
Which makes him a typical Stone-Age mystic unable to fathom the scientific method.
“What is mind?”
“No matter.”
“What is matter?”
“Never mind.”
Which roughly paraphrases much of the content of peer-reviewed philosophy journals...
The Immortal Goon wrote:These concepts aren't that hard! Nobody is trying to trick you just because you can't understand these things yet.
They -- you -- are trying to trick those who DO understand.
Some of the big words we use are there to shorten basic concepts down into something easier to write.
"The means of production" is not shorter or easier to write than "land and capital," so that's
that explanation for Marxist dishonesty down the drain.
These shortcuts can seem intimidating if you don't know what they are, but once you know them, you'll see why none of the rest of us have trouble with these "complicated" concepts that you try to water down.
I know perfectly well why you don't have trouble aggregating unlikes: it helps you pretend that they are alike.
And watering things down to something you can begin to understand is a good way to start with these concepts. You just need to keep at it
<yawn> How many years of practice did it take for you to become so adept at evading by pretending superiority?
Just because you are frustrated that you don't understand something doesn't mean the rest of us are being tricked.
I am frustrated because I DO understand it, and can't seem to find a way to help others understand it. It's like I'm watching everyone else driving around on flat tires, and telling them it would work a lot better if they pumped them up, and they just keep insisting I don't understand how tires are supposed to work, that they get more traction with flat tires because there is more rubber in contact with the road, and I should just run along, because it's all just too complicated for me to understand.
Maybe there is an easy way to explain this at your level:
<sigh> Was that supposed to be responsive? In fact, socialism and capitalism are the naked emperors, both insisting that land is capital and capital is land, though they tell that lie for opposite reasons. They are like two crooked palookas, pretending to fight while they actually hold each other up to avoid meeting the real challenger: justice.
See, like the emperor, you're trying to convince everyone else that what we plainly see in front of our faces isn't real because you don't understand what is going on.
No. I am the one telling you that what you plainly see in front of your faces IS real, that the emperor IS naked, and that your delusional Marxist belief that a factory is not a contribution to production by its owner, as land is not, is false and absurd. I am the one trying to get you to know what you already know: that to make money through the productive contribution of owning a factory and devoting it to production is hard, but to make money by idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide is so easy it can be done while comatose.
None of these things are that complicated for us. The fact that you're having some trouble with it is okay—we all learned from somewhere. I just want you to be able to participate more fully and am trying to help.
You are aware that you are trying to prevent your readers from knowing the fact that owning a factory and devoting it to production contributes to production, while idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide does not.
Even though you couldn't help pouting, you gave a definition! Good job
You are aware that I did not pout.
You made a few common mistakes.
No, you did.
For instance:
"Bourgeois" is an adjective; an adjective is a word used to describe a noun.
<yawn> I am the one who informed YOU of that fact, remember?
"Bourgeoisie" is a noun; a noun is a person, place, or thing.
So when you said that "bourgeois" refers to a class, the class it refers to is the "bourgeoisie."
I know this seems a little complicated, especially with the French words, but it is important if you want to understand some of these concepts.
<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.
The bourgeoisie class has a definition. Since you seem to be having a lot of trouble with words, I'll help you:
<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.
So if bourgeois is an adjective (a word that describes a noun) related to the noun (a person place or thing) "bourgeoisie" what do you suppose "bourgeois" means?
<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.
I asked YOU what SPECIFIC government you meant by, "the first experiment with bourgeois government."
Since then, you have done nothing but evade and pretend superiority:
Just in case you're a little ashamed to admit you don't know again, I'll write it out:
See?
"Bourgeois" would mean that it describes something "with social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private-property interest [like] a social order dominated by capitalists."
OK, so that would describe the governments of the Hanseatic League towns, which antedated the outcomes you ascribe to the "first experiment with bourgeois government" by half a millennium. I'm just trying to establish which part of your statement is the most incorrect.
Does that make sense to you now that I've written it out?
No, because:
Now, what do you think a means of production would look like if it had "social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private-property interest: a social order dominated by capitalists?"
I can't imagine land and capital having social behavior or political views at all, let alone ones influenced by private property interest. You don't seem to be talking about things that can possibly have the characteristics you ascribe to them.
Knowing this will help you answer the other question you've been having difficulty with: How is Egyptian slavery different than American slavery?
<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.
You did a really good job trying to answer what "bourgeois" meant and was really close to being correct.
No, you are aware that I was correct.
Let's bring it home and give me three ways that Egyptian slavery may have been different than American slavery!
<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.
We're really close to understanding what I meant by this. If you can just take the time to try and get an answer for how Ancient Egyptian slavery may have been different than 18th century American slavery...
If you can't defend your claims, just say so. I'm not going to provide your arguments for you just because you profess to be giving me homework assignments. Is that what you do with your students? Crib from their homework submissions for your scholarly journal papers?
I know, you're doing a really good job so far
Better than you, anyway....
Just because you don't understand words doesn't mean that the word itself is "dishonest" or that people are trying to trick you!
Dishonesty can't be converted into honesty by pretending that those who identify it as such just don't "understand" it.
I'm trying to help you understand these concepts that you seem to have a lot of problems understanding!
Disgraceful.
[Bulaba note: Triple posts merged]