YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I dislike Thatcherism. However, I want to point out that your quote is flawed; Thatcher goes on to say, 'There are individual[s] [...] and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people [who] [...] must look to themselves first.' She is saying you cannot expect from society without acting as an individual. I don't think Thatcher believes that there are no culturally bounded groups (i.e. societies); as a conservative such a view is antithetical to her ideology.

RowanFortuneWood 4 years ago

Randy,

You annoyed me when you say only politicians are between the individual and the society.

Thatcher wrecked our society here in the UK unless your a stock trader or CEO or something.

The only reason she said theres no such thing as society is because she thought she needed slogans to attack the coal miners, Thatchers statement is not a concept its just a slogan.

P.S I think individual [Leaders] start wars and [communities] fight them if they're foolished enoth to follow the leader.

Mike1977a1 4 years ago

Hi dude, sorry I annoyed you, but I think we agree about Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps you didn't notice the note of my derision in my voice when I said "thank-you, Margaret Thatcher?" Yes, I think Margaret Thatcher did destroy a lot of society by trying to ignore its reality.

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

I hate objective talk. It's too arrogant. It's absurd. All we can do is accept. We cannot be absolutely sure with the possibility that we are wrong... and until we know everything about the entire universe, if that's even possible, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. PWNED OWNED and all that jazz.

savagemike90 4 years ago

Hey Randy, I don't think the communal/individual distinction can be separated just because we have no private language. Communal/individual ARE meaningful in a given ordinary context(and it'd be hard to point to something communal if there was no something individual). It's like you asked if God or man is more basic, and answered that God doesn't exist, therefore man. It doesn't really answer the question. So could you try to find a better reason communal is more basic?

azrienoch 4 years ago

Hmmm.....I don't quite get the force of your objection. How is asking whether the communal/individual sense of "accept" is more basic like asking whether God or humanity is more basic? clearly both societies and individuals exist, so I don't quite see the parallel.

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

Well, even words like "pain," "thought," and "feeling" arise out of commun-ication, and of course "accept" does as well. But you weren't asking whether the word arises out of an individualistic or communistic, you were asking whether an individual's acceptance or a community's acceptance is more basic.

azrienoch 4 years ago

Oh, and to clarify, you said, "clearly both societies and individuals exist, so I don't quite see the parallel," and indeed they do, but consider 5:10. You're not asking about an example of acceptance in a context, but how the word is learned and used. When it comes to the origins and uses of words, there is no private language, no private meaning, and thus, the God/man analogy holds.

azrienoch 4 years ago

Ok, Azrienoch, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, there is stretch of the argument which needs to be patched up. If we _just_ say that a kid learns to use the word "pain" in the context of, say, interacting with a parent, this leaves open the possiblity that when the parent and kid disagree, it is only _individual_ acceptances which are disagreeing. (cont)

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

Consider the word "pain". When a kid learns to use the word "pain" in the context of interacting with a parent, which meaning of the word is the kid learning---the meaning which is accepted in an individual sense by the parent, or the meaning which is accepted in a communal sense by the parent? (cont)

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

(cont to Azrienoch) Well, inasmuch as we can't really individually change the meaning of the word "pain", it must be the meaning which the parent accepts in the **communal** sense. In fact, meanings of words might be an interesting example of things which _only_ are accepted in a communal sense and not an individual sense (which is another way of stating that there is no private language)

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

Hmmm... I don't think we're exactly talking about the same thing. "Pain" was an example of something we might think of as evidence of the individual being more basic. While "pain" is learned and used communally, feeling pain is not. So when it comes to acceptance, which is a more basic kind: the individual's acceptance, or the community's acceptance. The debate rages on!

azrienoch 4 years ago

Hi Azrienoch, do you think its a valid use of the word accept to say "I accept this pain in my foot?" It seems strange to me somehow that qualia would be the kinds of things which are accepted. If, on the other hand, what is accepted is a proposition, e.g. "I accept that I have a pain in my foot", I think that works, but it loses its privacy--you can accept that I have a pain in my foot, too.

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

Err... you're reading too much Rorty.

azrienoch 4 years ago

Ad Rortium!!!

randyhelzerman 4 years ago

If this is the conclusion of Rorty, I think he's right. There is no "accept" until community, there is only "is", as far as the unspoken or thought 'language' goes. I say this because to "accept" implies a difference that one doesn't recognize as naturally distinctive, or so I see it.

JSResponds 4 years ago

Go back to teh colored boxes. At one point they ARE seen as blue, at another one IS darker, they ARE different. It seems to me that to say "I accept that they are blue" requires someone else whose view is different to say so, and thus be saying "I accept something else." Can you disagree with me here, Az?

JSResponds 4 years ago

video reply coming up.

touchingstoves 4 years ago

w00t! my own slide!

touchingstoves 4 years ago

I still love seeing my name in lights. =)

Link to this comment:

All Comments (25)