Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed? » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?
Quality of Life v Capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1172

Posted 01/14/08 - 10:51 AM:	#126
Moosashi wrote: The wants and needs of others are beyond your judgment. They are subjective in every sense of the word. You are epistemologically incapable of knowing when another person has 'enough'. ... Only the individual who makes the purchase can determine whether the purchase will have net negative value. Value cannot be assessed objectively. I totally disagree with the extremism of these two remarks. Subjectivity doesn't mean or entail incommensurability. If we were so epistemologically incapable of knowing what another person feels or thinks, all communication would be a waste of time, there would be no sense at all in arguing, but, in fact, we can argue on what is "enough". The fact that value cannot be assessed exactly on objective ground, does not mean that value is a purely subjective judgment. We can discuss the value of various things, agree on various dimensions along which the valuation takes place, and precise various references from which to measure this value, and agree on the resulting value. It is foremostly "absolute value" that is not consensual, but "absolute" in general has little sense if any. And with regards to advertising, a consensus will be relatively easy to reach about the futility of the valuation dimensions an advert puts on the foreground, provided both parties are honest and have a minimum of critical mind. The problem with such an individualistic extremism is that it posits (implicitely) that individual is a "natural" concept (and as such indepassable, as belonging to a beyondness, with qualities beyond other's judgment), that we are born as distinct individuals, but that only shows a complete ignorance of the history of ideas, "individual" is a very recent concept (17th-18th century), and any fruitful debate about it would start by a deconstruction of this concept (a pre-requisite to this is however to admit that there is no such thing as a "natural" concept). Edited by enkidu on 01/14/08 - 01:15 PM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 01/14/08 - 03:27 PM:	#127
enkidu wrote: I totally disagree with the extremism of these two remarks. Subjectivity doesn't mean or entail incommensurability. If we were so epistemologically incapable of knowing what another person feels or thinks, all communication would be a waste of time, there would be no sense at all in arguing, but, in fact, we can argue on what is "enough". No, we can't argue about what is 'enough'. If we agreed, it would simply be the coincidence of two subjective opinions and then, of course, we wouldn't be arguing. If you believe you can argue a point, you believe that you are right and your opponent is wrong, but your version of 'enough' can never be superior to my version of 'enough'. Nor can mine be superior to yours, so we are immediately at an impasse. Argument is impossible. The fact that value cannot be assessed exactly on objective ground, does not mean that value is a purely subjective judgment. Actually, it does. If something cannot be entirely assessed objectively, it is purely subjective. There is no middle ground between objective and subjective. We can discuss the value of various things, agree on various dimensions along which the valuation takes place, and precise various references from which to measure this value, and agree on the resulting value. It is foremostly "absolute value" that is not consensual, but "absolute" in general has little sense if any. We may agree on such things as price but not (beyond coincidence) value. Trade, after all, represents a disagreement in value (I value my computer more than the X dollars I spent to obtain it. It's previous owners valued the dollars more). And with regards to advertising, a consensus will be relatively easy to reach about the futility of the valuation dimensions an advert puts on the foreground, provided both parties are honest and have a minimum of critical mind. I don't understand what you mean here. The problem with such an individualistic extremism is that it posits (implicitely) that individual is a "natural" concept (and as such indepassable, as belonging to a beyondness, with qualities beyond other's judgment), that we are born as distinct individuals, but that only shows a complete ignorance of the history of ideas, "individual" is a very recent concept (17th-18th century), and any fruitful debate about it would start by a deconstruction of this concept (a pre-requisite to this is however to admit that there is no such thing as a "natural" concept). The individual is not a recent concept. Humans have identified as individuals throughout history. Individual political freedom is a recent concept in practice, but even that has its roots in Classical civilization, Judeo-Christrian culture and ancient China (that we know of).

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1172

Posted 01/14/08 - 04:12 PM:	#128
Moosashi wrote: No, we can't argue about what is 'enough'. If we agreed, it would simply be the coincidence of two subjective opinions and then, of course, we wouldn't be arguing. If you believe you can argue a point, you believe that you are right and your opponent is wrong, but your version of 'enough' can never be superior to my version of 'enough'. Nor can mine be superior to yours, so we are immediately at an impasse. Argument is impossible. Let me try to be more precise: Within a context, we can argue about what's enough, about the various dimensions we use to valuate this "enough". To argue about what's enough, without precising the "what" is indeed non-sensical, but in practise, nobody does that. When my wife tells me I had enough drink, I may answer no, but then, she may bring to my attention, that I may sleep badly, dehydrate too much,..., and I may after more reflexions, in consideration of this health dimension agree with her. Moosashi wrote: Actually, it does. If something cannot be entirely assessed objectively, it is purely subjective. There is no middle ground between objective and subjective. No, that's ethnocentrist, the dichotomy objective/subjective does not make any sense in a buddhist or a chinese framework, where everything is "dependently originated" (to take the buddhist phraseology). But even in the western context, your position is an extremist one, all along the 20th century, the separation between objective and subjective has become more porous than you seem to think, especially when we come to the level of discourse (where the interest of a dichotomy lies). Moosashi wrote: We may agree on such things as price but not (beyond coincidence) value. Trade, after all, represents a disagreement in value (I value my computer more than the X dollars I spent to obtain it. It's previous owners valued the dollars more). Again, absolute value does not make any sense, you have to specify the dimension, once you do that, if you do it precisely enough, I may well agree with the value you put on your computer, or on the contrary, I may convince you to revise your valuation by highlighting some other dimensions you did not take into account, or pointing out an inconsitency of your valuation with some others you already made. Moosashi wrote: I don't understand what you mean here. I meant that ads will aim at enticing you to buy a product via various associations that bear very little links (if any) with what will make you to value this product, whatever aggregated value (the sum of the value according to the various dimensions you think as relevant for you) you put on it. Basically, taking profit of the psychological state of passivity you are in watching TV (for instance in the case of TV ads), it will aim at convincing you that some dimensions of the product are more important than others, while, after buying and using this product, you may realise that these dimensions are completely useless to you. Moosashi wrote: The individual is not a recent concept. Humans have identified as individuals throughout history. Individual political freedom is a recent concept in practice, but even that has its roots in Classical civilization, Judeo-Christrian culture and ancient China (that we know of). Well, what current concept does not have its root in early civilisation. But the concept of individual (obviously in its political sense) is recent, not only in practise but also in theory, this theory (which is still evolving) started with the enlightenment. Ancient China has a different concept of individual, as well as Japan. While in this later case, one may argue that there is no such concept at all, until the end of the 19th century, which is very interesting, because from 1600 onwards, Japan actually developped a capitalism without individualism, two concepts we so eagerly combined (and even interchanged) in the West, while they can be understood completely independently. Edited by enkidu on 01/14/08 - 06:04 PM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2692

Posted 01/15/08 - 03:20 AM:	#129
perseus wrote: compelling people to purchase your product against their own interests is another Fried Egg, you are thoroughly misrepresenting the position of advertising critics. Advertising doesn't make anybody do anything no more than a short cut through a shop does, but it will make purchasing items that are unnecessary or of limited use more likely by working on our perceived inadequacies, boredom and greed. This has negative long term value for the individual, society and also has disastrous consequences for the environment. People don't like to accept that they are influenced by trivial advertising techniques. However, we all have 'sheep' genes, we see one person of perceived stature doing something and most want to follow, its called fashion. If it didn't work why do companies pay to advertise, surely not to supply useful information? I did not say that advertising didn't "work". If new companies were not allowed to advertise themselves, no one would know of their existance. If new products were not advertised, people would not know about them. If existing products or services are changed in ways that might be beneficial to the consumer, advertising communicates this information. Advertising is not objective and certainly biased. But so what? If one requires (and there exists such a thing as) an objective analysis, one must look to independent review and comparison articles. Advertising however allows companies to put their side of the story across and gets themselves known and (hopefully) in the forefront of people's minds when they come to make purchasing decisions. But really, most things we buy these days could certainly be deemed "unnecessary" if one were concerned only with the barest survival. But going beyond this is not necessarilly indicative of greed nor a result of advertising. It is as a result of the near universal drive people have to improve the condition of our existance. You may think such striving is frivalous indicative of greed and you are entitled to your opinion. I refrain from making such judgements. But I do think it is dangerous to start infering that other people, in striving for things which you consider to be frivalous and unnecessary, must therefore be being manipulated by advertising. Advertisers certainly attempt to tap into this genral drive to improve the human condition. But I don't think they have created it. Edited by Fried Egg on 01/15/08 - 03:25 AM

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 01/19/08 - 11:01 AM:	#130
enkidu wrote: Let me try to be more precise: Within a context, we can argue about what's enough, about the various dimensions we use to valuate this "enough". To argue about what's enough, without precising the "what" is indeed non-sensical, but in practise, nobody does that. When my wife tells me I had enough drink, I may answer no, but then, she may bring to my attention, that I may sleep badly, dehydrate too much,..., and I may after more reflexions, in consideration of this health dimension agree with her. Obviously, if you and your wife have different premises, your conclusions will not agree. But the debate shifts then to the premises, not the derivation of the conclusions, and in your example, there is no debate. Your wife simply stated her premises and you agreed with them because you simply forgot to include them in your original analysis. Getting back on point, there is no way to use the above example to argue for authoritative control on the economy. You could have still disagreed with your wife even if you had accepted that drinking more will cause sleep deprivation and dehydration. Perhaps to you the drink is worth it. This is a subjective consideration. By definition, there is no objective way to demonstrate that one subjective evaluation of "enough" is superior to another. Thus, there is no argument. No, that's ethnocentrist, the dichotomy objective/subjective does not make any sense in a buddhist or a chinese framework, where everything is "dependently originated" (to take the buddhist phraseology). But even in the western context, your position is an extremist one, all along the 20th century, the separation between objective and subjective has become more porous than you seem to think, especially when we come to the level of discourse (where the interest of a dichotomy lies). Value (another way of saying "how much is enough?") is ultimately and entirely subjective. An individual's assessment of value may depend on factors that may be measured objectively, but the relative weights of objective factors are subjective. Any individual could conceivably give an objective factor any weight from 0 to infinity. The assessment depends on these weights, and the weights depend on the individual, so the assessment depends on the individual. If the assessment depends on the individual, it is subjective, by definition. Perhaps you would like to re-define "subjective" according to Buddhist philosophy, but you still be left with the concept that the assessment depends on the individual, only now you won't have a word for it. I meant that ads will aim at enticing you to buy a product via various associations that bear very little links (if any) with what will make you to value this product, whatever aggregated value (the sum of the value according to the various dimensions you think as relevant for you) you put on it. Basically, taking profit of the psychological state of passivity you are in watching TV (for instance in the case of TV ads), it will aim at convincing you that some dimensions of the product are more important than others, while, after buying and using this product, you may realise that these dimensions are completely useless to you. I may realize that the dimensions of my evaluation were completely useless whether or not the product was advertised. I may find that a particular decision turned out to be wrong, but that does not mean someone else necessarily would have made a better choice. I don't see how you can believe that forcing people to pay for things they don't think they want (marginally) will make them more satisfied with their purchases. I certainly don't see that being in a psychologically passive state necessarily means that any information I receive is illegitimate. If I have no control over the affect of TV advertising on my economic decisions, why don't I buy everything I see advertised on TV? In fact, I feel I buy very few of the things I see advertised on TV. I bet you are the same. I bet anyone you care to ask is the same.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1172

Posted 01/20/08 - 10:01 AM:	#131
Moosashi wrote: Obviously, if you and your wife have different premises, your conclusions will not agree. But the debate shifts then to the premises, not the derivation of the conclusions, and in your example, there is no debate. Your wife simply stated her premises and you agreed with them because you simply forgot to include them in your original analysis. Getting back on point, there is no way to use the above example to argue for authoritative control on the economy. You could have still disagreed with your wife even if you had accepted that drinking more will cause sleep deprivation and dehydration. Perhaps to you the drink is worth it. This is a subjective consideration. By definition, there is no objective way to demonstrate that one subjective evaluation of "enough" is superior to another. Thus, there is no argument. Value (another way of saying "how much is enough?") is ultimately and entirely subjective. An individual's assessment of value may depend on factors that may be measured objectively, but the relative weights of objective factors are subjective. Any individual could conceivably give an objective factor any weight from 0 to infinity. The assessment depends on these weights, and the weights depend on the individual, so the assessment depends on the individual. If the assessment depends on the individual, it is subjective, by definition. Perhaps you would like to re-define "subjective" according to Buddhist philosophy, but you still be left with the concept that the assessment depends on the individual, only now you won't have a word for it. I think our difference on this matter lies in what we understand by "individual", I don't see individuals as so ontologically distinct that they assessment of value are incommensurable. For more on my view about what an individual may and may not stand for, you can have a look at the thread "The politology of twosomeness" in Social Sciences section. To summarize briefly, we all largely share a common web of meanings, And even though we can move more or less freely within this web, we can all relate to a point of view which is not ours at a certain time, that's what makes debate possibly constructive. It is, in this sense, that the dichotomy subjective/objective is not that significant, the subjective merely being an aggregate product of objectivities, rendered meaningful by an impersonal objectless desire, that is immanent to any human being. It is from this vantage point that we can start a deconstruction of our individuality, and progress towards freedom from our idiosyncratic subjectivity, it is where debate is possible. You seem to hold another view, where debate is extremely limited, and ultimately impossible, beyond a certain point marking the end of a common ground. I don't think there is any such end of common ground, I don't believe in a soul or in an ontological difference between individuals. Moosashi wrote: I may realize that the dimensions of my evaluation were completely useless whether or not the product was advertised. I may find that a particular decision turned out to be wrong, but that does not mean someone else necessarily would have made a better choice. I don't see how you can believe that forcing people to pay for things they don't think they want (marginally) will make them more satisfied with their purchases. I certainly don't see that being in a psychologically passive state necessarily means that any information I receive is illegitimate. If I have no control over the affect of TV advertising on my economic decisions, why don't I buy everything I see advertised on TV? In fact, I feel I buy very few of the things I see advertised on TV. I bet you are the same. I bet anyone you care to ask is the same. TV advertisement do not determine your choice, they aim at influencing it in the largest measure possible, with no consideration to the "legitimacy" of the information they provide. Obviously, they do provide a legitimate information, something informative and useful about the product, if only to identify it, but their content is not limited to provide relevant information, or the advertisement budget would be pretty low. Clearly there is something else going on, something that packages this informative content, and takes it beyond, branching it out to an external actractiveness that relies on aesthetic commonplaces, holding no or little relationship to the product itself. This packaging intends to create a culture, leading to consumption, a car is sexy only as much as it is advertised to be so, sexiness is not inherent to a car, it is superimposed by advertising, that aims at creating an aura around the product. Whether it's legitimate or not is not what I mean here, you used this word, I did not. I only acknowledged advertising for what it is, its aim is to sell a product, not to inform anybody, while there is an informative part in it, it is beyond it that advertisement creates its added value. And the counter-argument that one can decide for oneself what he wants, is not relevant here (besides being very arguable in relation to how an individual is defined), the heart of the matter is that the association between a car and sexuality is done by the advertisement in order to create a culture of consumption, that's what consumerism is all about, it takes the car, which is basically a tool to move around, outside of itself, branching it out to power, sexuality,..., and creates a world where consumption becomes foundational of identity. Advertising does not merely inform about a pre-existing reality, it is creative of a reality, and the goal of this creation is exclusively consumption. It is from this acknowledgment that one may decide to accept or to criticize such a world on a moral ground, something I am not doing here. Edited by enkidu on 01/20/08 - 11:45 AM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.