What is the value of debate, in itself?

[Azaeroe 40]

Should we not just act in praxis, toward social utopia?

[Gesu 1537]

The difficulty with simply acting towards our individual definitions of a social utopia is that the world will never agree on what that actually means. For some, it would be capitalism and for others, communism. For some, conservativism and for others, liberalism. I think that in order to reach the most widely desired definition of such a thing, we don't really have much of a choice but to talk it out for a while beforehand. Hell, why do you think Brexit's taking so long? Because Theresa May can't get her shite together Because we couldn't all agree at one time. This is why democratic societies tend to work most functionally and have happy people with long life expectancies, and why totalitarian states tend to be desperately miserable. It's extremely rare (and as far as I know, undocumented) that you'll find a totalitarian state with contented people living in it.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Gesu

[Azaeroe 40]

22 minutes ago, Gesu said:

I think that in order to reach the most widely desired definition of such a thing, we don't really have much of a choice but to talk it out for a while beforehand. It's extremely rare (and as far as I know, undocumented) that you'll find a totalitarian state with contented people living in it.

Define "a while". I don't see how this would change anything. Also, why is it important to be contented? Surely there are a plethora of different reasons to live than one's personal pleasure.

[Gesu 1537]

21 minutes ago, Azaeroe said:

Define "a while". I don't see how this would change anything. Also, why is it important to be contented? Surely there are a plethora of different reasons to live than one's personal pleasure.

Well, obviously if it took, say, a hundred years, it'd be a bit pointless because by the time a century had passed, people's norms/values would have changed anyways and they'd most likely vouch for something different. I'm not entirely sure how long the average change in policies takes, but I'll say about a year or so as an example, which actually isn't too long in the grand scheme of things once you consider that a prime minister's term time is four IIRC.

To answer your second question, it's important to be contented because personal pleasure is important to one's quality of life. I think it's easy to take things for granted and that it'd be pretty difficult to imagine living in a society where you couldn't even feel comfortable because the authorities simply wouldn't allow it. Could you explain why you don't think being contended is important, and what you would opt for instead?

Edited May 1, 2019 by Gesu

[Azaeroe 40]

14 minutes ago, Gesu said:

I'm not entirely sure how long the average change in policies takes, but I'll say about a year or so as an example, which actually isn't too long in the grand scheme of things once you consider that a prime minister's term time is four IIRC. Could you explain why you don't think being contended is important, and what you would opt for instead?

If you keep changing policy, how can anything ever be truly achieved, in praxis?

 

Instead of instant pleasure, I would opt for a system in which people have a sense of fulfilled selfhood, personally and communally.

[Gesu 1537]

2 minutes ago, Azaeroe said:

If you keep changing policy, how can anything ever be truly achieved, in praxis?

 

Instead of instant pleasure, I would opt for a system in which people have a sense of fulfilled selfhood, personally and communally.

Policies have to change over time because norms/values inevitably change, too. For example, it wasn't until 1993 that marital rape became illegal in all states of the US. Fifty-odd years ago, it would have been considered totally fine to do such a thing by most people in society even if we would view it as abhorrent now. Things are achieved, and I wouldn't view changes in policies as taking away from an achievement so much as I would enhancing it to better fit modern society.

You have a point about instant pleasure; I take it by that, you mean things like drugs and other inherently harmful things that provide a quick thrill? I agree that we can feel personally/communally fulfilled without resorting to such measures. Still, I am curious as to where exactly you would draw the line. What would you consider to be harmful/harmless?

[Azaeroe 40]

10 minutes ago, Gesu said:

You have a point about instant pleasure; I take it by that, you mean things like drugs and other inherently harmful things that provide a quick thrill? I agree that we can feel personally/communally fulfilled without resorting to such measures. Still, I am curious as to where exactly you would draw the line. What would you consider to be harmful/harmless?

The system as it currently is is what is harmful, as it does not provide anyone, personally or communally, with a genuine and fulfilling sense of selfhood. 

[Gesu 1537]

Just now, Azaeroe said:

The system as it currently is is what is harmful, as it does not provide anyone, personally or communally, with a genuine and fulfilling sense of selfhood. 

That's a little vague. What would you change about it?

[Azaeroe 40]

3 minutes ago, Gesu said:

That's a little vague. What would you change about it?

I think the abolition of classes, for instance, is futile, but think that the abolition of classISM is possible. If people understand themselves within the context of this, and work together in the context of this, they could rebuild a substantial sense of community.

[secret_no_03 959]

On 5/1/2019 at 2:12 PM, Azaeroe said:

I think the abolition of classes, for instance, is futile, but think that the abolition of classISM is possible. If people understand themselves within the context of this, and work together in the context of this, they could rebuild a substantial sense of community.

Classism is set to soon be replaced by literal social currency I. e. social credit. classism is about to be ratched up to a whole new level in the next five or ten years.

[Elagabalus 4]

Debate isint valuable itself because almost all humans can't cope with the truth therefore they create their own but a monstrous charismatic individual would be not only convince but manipulate making it one sided which logically speaking make the debate settled but in reality they are both passionate and affectionate towards the individual 

 

Tl:Dr : A trivial topic where it doesent carry significance because everyone's blinded to their own truths