life affirming literature about how violence, competion, etc. arent necessary

[Anonymous No.11932324]

there was a thread about with topic of why violence is viewed as inherently bad. Which was taken down for whatever reason (probably a good one)
anyways i was in an argument with some no-nothings who thought competition and selection are vital to life and evolution.
i gave the example of ocean biodiversity being an example, of how competition is mostly a phenomenon of spatial partitioning and how life would diversify perfectly fine, actually at a much higher rate in absence of competition for scare resources.
this dummy gave me a snide "stopped reading" brainlet wojak response. So here i am compelled to share some (scientific) literature to explain what i was talking about. Unfortunately /lit/ is the place for that because /sci/ is too ignorant to actually discuss scientific literature. Ideally /sci/ would also be the place to discuss academic philosophy, but it isn't that way due to uniformed board organization.
anyways my example included a few things, how space in marine ecosystems was more full of life due to the spatial extension of water compared to air. Also how competitive exclusion is more of a quantification, and the philosophical consideration of competition shows its is expansion and not competition itself that produces the phenomenon of competition.

This brings out old debates between Darwin and Lamarck, Hobbes and Kropotkin. all kinds of things applicable for inputs from literary fiction, social theory, ect. so please lets discuss literature pertaining to these questions, such as Kropotkin's Mutual Aid contra Hobbes's Leviathan. speculative discussion of how the Hobbesian "might makes right" right worldview is factually wrong, from both poetic and analytical approaches. I've already shown how (predominately) right wing co-ops of evolutionary theories to justify their political world view are pseudo-scientific. I can continue to do so. Also interested in showing how hypocritical it is for someone to adopt a Hobbesian vantage and maintain they also subscribe to Christian/traditional systems of belief. So any input on how Christian/Eastern traditions(besides Confucianism) are all about the love would be appreciated. As an epic science guy that is out of my expertise but im certain that Hobbesian and Evolaesque worldviews are antithetical to actual tradition. This is explicit in Hobbes who begins with the supposition that humans are mere mechanistic automatons, though is much more hypocritical in people like Evola. Also interested in how Nietzsche's views on Will to Power are necessarily aligned with viewing competition as a product of action and not the driver of action. Somewhat counter-intuitive until you consider it more deeply.

[Anonymous No.11932327]

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1939377

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03403.x

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00554.x

https://www.nature.com/articles/35083573

https:// link. springer.com /article / 10.1007 / s100210000044

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01299.x

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/12-1693.1

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00355.x

https://link .springer .com/ article/ 10.1007/ s004420050930

[Anonymous No.11932346]

You should put more effort in defining the topic if you wish people to react seriously. Start by using basic grammar correctly.

[Anonymous No.11932369]

Highly relevant to this matter but only readily available to specialists is Charles Sanders Peirce's doctrine of universal love
articulated here in the essay "evolutionary love"

http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm

the difficulty in recommending this essay is the fact that like everything Peirce, it cant be fully appreciated without an understanding of his phaneroscopy and semiotic.

[Anonymous No.11932374]

>>11932346
>You should put more effort in defining the topic
>Start by using basic grammar correctly.
oof
it stings

[Anonymous No.11932449]

>>11932346
fuck off brainlet

>>11932324
it hit me the other day that something essentially belonging to the social animal must be responsible for the idea that the universe was created out of a kind of divine loneliness, and that if tigers or other solitary predators could talk their god would be as majestic and self-assured in the void as they are in the forest


we don't know shit about nature in-itself. good on you for working to dispel these very entrenched notions.

[Anonymous No.11932635]

>>11932324
>I've already shown how (predominately) right wing co-ops of evolutionary theories to justify their political world view are pseudo-scientific. I can continue to do so
Please do

[Anonymous No.11932664]

>>11932324
are you gummonism?

[Anonymous No.11932758]

>>11932664
whats gummonism?
are you trying to ask if i am a communist then the answer is no. I think Marx's critique of the capitalist political economy, reaches an adequate conclusion but from flawed premises. Those flaws, were bad enough as they were but as they were elaborated on by Marxists, and especially by the Bolsheviks, ruined the noble project of socialism. I dont think that markets are that bad either, as long as capital isnt given the legal foundation(property law) to take on a fictitious reality. So im not an ancom but i don't see any fundamental flaw in anarchist communism besides that it just isn't a practical means for economic organization, especially post-industrial revolution. Id say im some kind of socialist but i need to label myself with a neologism, I prefer to call myself an animist. I think we need to use experimental political economies to find something adequate to transition away from capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11932812]

>>11932324
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11932855]

>>11932758
Since you responded in a serious way to my memepost, I'll try to lay out my problem with non-confrontationalism or whatever you want to call your position.

The idea of symbiosis presupposes that the parties involved know what is good for each other. On the level of dumb animals that isn't a problem, but for philosophical subjects 'help' equals influence equals control, and ultimately we have to find a balance between giving each other room to develop as entities distinct from one another, and preventing oneanother from acting out what we perceive to be oppressive behavior, and in that process there is always a dynamic of power. There's a kind of paradox for instance, in teaching a child a language. You are effectively participating in molding its linguistic mode of understanding itself and the world it inhabits, you are taking away its infinite potential to be anything and helping it manifest it into something specific, something that in some ways falls short of the ideal. You are doing this in the knowledge that this is the only way, and that the chains you are creating can become means toward liberation from those chains into greater freedom. However, to give too much direction is oppression, as is giving too little, or direction of the wrong kind.
Competition exists because we can't (I don't mean that we haven't but that it's impossible, that improvement in this field can only happen incrementally and imperfectly) figure out what the right metrics are objectively. I think I deserve a certain position in society and you do not, so we compete using means we deem appropriate while others may not. It's a necessary byproduct of subjecticity, and the only way to get rid of it would be to collectivize consciousness, which is what totalitarian regimes consistently attempt and fail to do

[Anonymous No.11932878]

>>11932855
>collectivize consciousness, which is what totalitarian regimes consistently attempt and fail to do
That's where you're wrong, kiddo

[Anonymous No.11932889]

>>11932878
THE UNENLIGHTENED MASSES

[Anonymous No.11934419]

>>11932324
You're a fucking retard and you're gonna get yourself killed.
Peace out.

[Anonymous No.11934565]

>>11934419
>You're a fucking retard
rude
>and you're gonna get yourself killed
odd thing to say

[Anonymous No.11934769]

I'm more interested in how the character structure and worldview of these right wing edgelords is formed. How basic emotional gaps can act as a springboard to cherry pick on evidence, misunderstand nature, and arrive at trauma affirming conclusions while being adamant that you conduct impartial empirical research.

[Anonymous No.11934871]

>>11934769
It's not specific to any movement. Brain biases affect everyone. Only the biological fears of change and the unknown are more prevalent in right wing thinkers; add constant cultural droning on about hierarchies and shit is given.

[Anonymous No.11934875]

Life is nothing but a violent competition, anybody who suggests otherwise is gaslighting you

[Anonymous No.11934883]

what are some books that encourage an appreciation of the wonders of life, and what are some books that encourage someone to have the will to fight

[Anonymous No.11934924]

>>11932324
>life affirming literature about denying aspects of life
Not how that works, anon.

[Anonymous No.11935036]

>>11932855
>help' equals influence equals control
The jump you make is huge. From well meaning non-destructive 'control' , that is in essence voluntary, since the child wants to relate and attach to the system of the parent (so essentially not-control)... to the affirmation of power and competition that destructs without consent.
Can't you really picture a non-imposing collection of individuals that have arrived at the conclusion that they want to share good and bad and aren't full of petty power instincts? It's absurd to regard humans, as the other anon said, as mere automatons driven by animalistic desires.

Competition exists because most humans are an immature mess of unmet psychological needs that is projected to the world.

[Anonymous No.11935690]

Nump

[Anonymous No.11935721]

>>11932324
If you didn't use an anime image, I would have read your post.

[Anonymous No.11935731]

>>11932449

Kek.

[Anonymous No.11935735]

"might is right" does not apply to evolution
it definitely applies to human life
I want something you have op, whether you own it or not is irrelevant, I am more willing to fight for it therefore it is mine

[Anonymous No.11935736]

>>11932324

this blatant bait and everyone on this board is going to take it

[Anonymous No.11935895]

>>11932449
This is quite insightful. I will be thinking of tiger gods whenever I think of conceptions of monotheism from now on.

[Anonymous No.11935927]

>>11935036
>Competition exists because most humans are an immature mess of unmet psychological needs that is projected to the world.
You sure you don't mean >all humans? Even buddhist monks get into fights with each other. Even by your own worldview, competition will always exist until we all reach enlightenment, and even then, there will be competition to see who gets there first (There already is, for that matter.).

>>11932324
Competition is kind of an inherent aspect of life since we need resources to survive and procreate. Either we take those resources, or some other animal does. Predators didn't even exist for the first 2 billion years of life on this planet, but those early animals were still competing. Even if we stop competing with each other, we'll still be in competition with other species. That in itself doesn't justify retarded social darwinism philosophies, but you can't philosophically reason away competition unless you argue that this should be the last generation of humans.

[Anonymous No.11935966]

>>11935036
>Can't you really picture a non-imposing collection of individuals that have arrived at the conclusion that they want to share good and bad
I find it absurd in light of the fact that you haven't understood even one part of my post. I can already picture the kind of trouble I would run into in trying to get along with you, and I don't say that just to be mean.
Alright, how about this: You tell me how you think we should help each other in our fictional collective, how we're going to distribute resources for artistic and scientific endeavors, how we're going to choose our sexual partners and the people we generally spend time with, who's doing the chores, how often do we clean our quarters, the bathroom, kitchensink, etc., who's going to educate our kids and what they are going to be taught. Tell me what these common interests we should all be able to agree on are in these specific areas. I'll be particularly interested in your answers pertaining to art and science, social relations and education.

[Anonymous No.11935994]

>>11935736
Why would you conclude that? If 4chan has taught me anything, it's that most people have poor reasoning and don't pay much attention to the obvious implications of their convictions.

[Anonymous No.11936000]

>>11932324
>no-nothings
Clearly you are both wildly subnormal and unable to diagnose yourself as such. Consider self-sterilisation.

[Anonymous No.11936279]

>>11935735
People are also receptive (in fact more so) to kindness, not just intimidation. The problem is that kindness requires one to wish goodwill on others who aren't exactly like them, and thus often lack the motivation to do so.

[Anonymous No.11936434]

>>11935966
i am a different guy but check this atempt at creating more participatism in society https://zcomm.org/capvsparart-2/ there is a page about art in such a system, and education too if i remember right

[Anonymous No.11936449]

>>11936434
> To be remunerated work must be socially beneficial, including art. Then the remuneration is for duration, intensity, and onerousness when relevant. To be hired, a worker must be competent in the eyes of the council he or she applies to, as with being hired for any job.
I'll take my chances with capitalism, thank you very much

[Anonymous No.11936466]

>>11936449
it's just a sketch of the general idea: the "council" could be aided with algorythms to counter balance the possible prejudices , misinformed, blindspots, stylistic rigidity of a council who could be decentralized and be made of a percentage of the population.

[Anonymous No.11936482]

>>11936466
i am listening to a lot of "outsider music" these days and under capitalism it's certain that all the material that managed to reach me having to go through the restrictions of capitalism is just a snowflake on the top of the tip of the iceberg... the bulk of that creativity is probably lost to history. another system could have been capable to harvest all that valuable information and share it properly.

[Anonymous No.11936503]

>>11932889
THEY CANNOT MAKE THE JUDGEMENT CALL

[Anonymous No.11936521]

>>11936482
Yeah you honestly cannot blame capitalism for not every artist being famous or appreciated. Youre heading towards the leftist event horizon where you see capitalism’s specter in everything you dislike about society, including in this case basic information filtering. Theres already too much music and general information “noise” for our brains to process, we dont need anymore.

[Anonymous No.11936542]

>>11932324
girard

[Anonymous No.11936544]

>>11935721
Bury Pink Girl is, strictly speaking, not an anime character. Kamane Madoka, whom she is based off, is, on the other hand, an anime character.

[Anonymous No.11936599]

>>11936466
True art is transformative, transgressive, it's not something the artist and his or her contemporaries can judge as 'useful' or 'not usefuö', because it changes the very metrics by which use would have to be understood. As >>11936521 has pointed out, you're blaming capitalism for problems that are situated perhaps at the level of cognition, or even basic properties of reality.

Your post reminds me of
>For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.
It's insanity to think that you can 'solve' reality with algorithms and committees, it's textbook totalitarian thought. I'm not arguing for social darwinism, all I'm trying to get across to you is that the opposition between competition and collaboration, personal and collective, state, economy and religion/art/philosophy/science etc. is necessary, and you can't expect to just do away with it and usher in utopia on earth.

[Anonymous No.11936712]

>>11932855
Children learn their first language on their own.

[Anonymous No.11936718]

>>11936599
Totalitarianism is to actually have a sovereign individual rather than pretending that everyone is.

[Anonymous No.11936724]

>>11936718
define sovereign individual

[Anonymous No.11936737]

>>11936724
Someone who is not limited by paper.

[Anonymous No.11936741]

>>11936737
so what are they free to do exactly?

[Anonymous No.11936745]

>>11936737
Of course, given how arbitrary the bureaucracy (or evenomy) of today is, being limited by them is inherently insulting.

[Anonymous No.11936748]

>>11932324
anarcho pacifism, or anarchy in general.

[Anonymous No.11936750]

>>11936741
Things beyond my responses.

[Anonymous No.11936754]

>>11936745
>or evenomy
Or even economy*
Really should get out of bed and have some covfefe.

[Anonymous No.11936756]

I never said that I don't think. Competition isn't natural I just don't think it is necessary. Thats why I don't see any problem with non-capitalist market econmies. What I am saying is organizing ourselves in a way that derivatively rewards competition, and concentrates the fictitious ownership of resources, there by making competition necessary, can't be justified just by pointing out that competition is in fact natural. I'm probably more familiar with competition, and violence associated with it than any of the people who describe to that all-too-human worldview that views such things as necessary.

[Anonymous No.11936759]

>>11934419
no u

[Anonymous No.11936764]

>>11936754
Iktf
>>11936756

[Anonymous No.11936770]

>>11934883
Biophilla by EO Wilson. It's a good pop-biology book.

[Anonymous No.11936781]

>>11936756
Reproduction is more often than not a competitive act. Heck, in your attempt to remove this obvious aspect of reality from nature you yourself are competing!
>this enemy(Hobbes, right wing) group has too many believers in this particular way
>how can I create an alternative to compete?
>if I give the alternative a scientific covering and tell others that the enemy group does not, I can brute force my view of nature onto others

[Anonymous No.11936802]

>>11936781
You misunderstand the point of my post. I'm saying competition is merely a contingency. It's perfectly natural, if you read the literature I mentioned it all takes competition as a given. What I am saying is that competition is but a product that has nothing innately to do with living as it is a process of life itself. In absence of resource scarcity competition does not exist. Never ever would I suggest that we ought to do away with competition completely. What I am saying is it is not factual to conceptualize competition as an intrinsic feature of life.

[Anonymous No.11936904]

>>11936802
> In absence of resource scarcity competition does not exist.
Elaborating further, when there is a scarce resource, it is not competitiveness that drives competition. Except in social situations where competivness has a biological grounding, such as mating displays and dominance hierarchies for example. There the animals are genetically predisposed to be competitive. Even still, that doesn't capture what animates those animals to compete. It is Life itself that makes living things reach for what is infront of them. The animated potential that drives a seed plants roots into the hummus to reach for nutrients, isn't any different when there are other plants also reaching for those same nutrients. Here competition can be plainly seen as what it really is, merely a contingent by(bio)product of animated action.
Sorry I won't go much in the way of explaining how this "animated potential" works. The little scientific explanations we have come from biosemiotics which is an advanced topic with alot of subtleties. I wouldn't do much justice to the topic of biosemiotics with any kind of course I could give here. Just thought I would point out the existence of explanations that really touch on the heart of what Life is like in itself, instead of descriptions of the things that Life does like competition, or symbiosis, or evolution.

[Anonymous No.11936931]

>>11936802
>I'm saying competition is merely a contingency. It's perfectly natural, if you read the literature I mentioned it all takes competition as a given. What I am saying is that competition is but a product that has nothing innately to do with living as it is a process of life itself.
You're getting there. Competition is a contingency of sorts, but a structurally necessary one, and in trying too hard to get rid of it you would be counter-productive. For instance, I'm all for moving away from physical violence, from political oppression, etc. in so far as it is reasonable. However, to eradicate these 'contingencies' totally would require a disproportionate level of control and ultimately create more problems than it solves.

[Anonymous No.11936934]

>>11936904
>on the heart of what Life is like in itself, instead of descriptions of the things that Life does like competition, or symbiosis, or evolution.
Just to clarify evolution is a core feature of life. It's just or scientific descriptions of evolution have yet to encapsulate that. This is changing and that frontier looks to be opening up with the application of semiotics, the evolutionary logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, to the science of biology.

[Anonymous No.11936980]

>>11936482
>the bulk of that creativity is probably lost to history
Ultimately, everything is lost to history.

[Anonymous No.11936988]

>>11936802
>In absence of resource scarcity
When has this condition ever obtained? When will it? Especially as one man's scarcity is another man's abundance.

[Anonymous No.11936990]

>>11932324
>i was in an argument with some no-nothings who thought competition and selection are vital to life and evolution.
This is because the dominant Western model of creativity and the human mind is fundamentally flawed, placing selection and choice as primary and variation as secondary. This is seen in our idea of "free will," of our creative freedom being derived from our ability to choose items from a list. Our freedom comes from our ability to question, which is the mutagenic element of conscious creativity, which isn't an absolute but a skill entirely dependent on your ability to question yourself. The better your ability to self-question, the better your ability to generate alternative potentialities of yourself. You are not a self-representation, a self-object, you are a self-subject which is a question questioning itself, with self-representation (your narrative model of who you are) created to facilitate self-query. Self-awareness and self-inquiry are synonyms; the spotlight of your awareness is a request for information.

The idea of the meme as cultural replicator is very popular, but there are two genders of mental replicators: queries (requests for information) and memes (informational content.) Informational patriarchalism ignores questions in favor of content-objects, i.e. answers and propositions, and views questions as being a lack, passive recipients of answers in much the same way that we once thought that women were the passive recipients of male seed which alone held the powers of reproductive creativity. Informational patriarchalism is characterized by unanswerable lies, answers that answer to nobody, not even their original question, persisting because they have evolved to subvert questioning to impose themselves. The Abrahamic God is informational patriarchy in its most encompassing form: unchanging and unquestioning, having the answer to everything, and the means to answer anything; there is no greater sin than questioning God. Reductive materialism follows the same informational patriarchalism, denying the existence of subjective experience and questions, blind to their primacy in the creative process. Questions aren't objects, they are movements, quests, and searches, and if your metaphysics focuses solely on objects there is no room for them in your schema.

We have such big brains because they allow us to account for that which biological evolution cannot: we can anticipate the future, creating possible futures and selecting among them for those most beneficial to us. Human consciousness is nothing less than the evolutionary process that has found a way through the limitless flexibility of language to fold on itself and self-modify, and questioning is the instrument that allows us to do this. Once we evolve past informational hierarchy only one holy symbol will remain: the question mark, a symbol of infinite potential and inexhaustible meanings, the rightful symbol of life itself.

[Anonymous No.11936997]

>>11936990
the abrahamic god isn't the same as the god of the new testament though

[Anonymous No.11937004]

>>11936931
My point is viewing competition as necessary, natural as it may be. When it is in fact a contingency. Limits our ability (potential niche breadth) to reach viable alternatives to competition, through symbiosis, cooperation, innovation, ect.
The toxic effects of such ideaologies that view competition as the necessary natural order of things cannot be understated, in the economy and geopolitically I'm sure you can find examples abound, the most tragic effect by far can be seen in man's destruction of the natural world. We have the fictitious realities of capital and state competiting with the really-real realities of the living world we live in, we are in effect out competiting ourselves for the scarce resource that is our home. We will be left; homeless, starved, and worse still, lonely. Hobbes himself, my ideaological enemy, who actually has my deep sympathies and respect for what thats worth, pointed out just how sorry we might be once we finally obtain the mastery over nature we have been competiting for during all of our time.
So how do we decide when to compete and when to come together? Pragmatism is the answer. First we need to understand that competition is far from the only way to do things.
Don't say condescending shit like, "your getting there" to someone who was where you are at during their adolescence.

[Anonymous No.11937016]

>>11936990
>for those most beneficial to us
This is so subjective as to be meaningless. Your whole thesis is a case of Marxesque utopian masturbation.

[Anonymous No.11937025]

>>11936988
All the time, when you and your friends are hanging around, when I used to share the beautiful limestone glade by my home with all the butterflies, birds, deer, wild turkey, and the myriad plants that were to be found. That was before a Walmart excutive excavated it for that multimillion dollar headstone he and his family sleep in a few weeks every summer.

[Anonymous No.11937052]

>>11937025
And then you got hungry and had to eat. Which meant you had to buy food. Which meant you or somebody close to you had to have a job, and compete for work, and take part in the economy.

Maybe you'll get a clue when your trust fund runs out.

[Anonymous No.11937062]

>>11937004
>Don't say condescending shit like, "your getting there" to someone who was where you are at during their adolescence

The difference between you and me is that you're only willing to look at one side of the equation.
You (rightly) point out that a certain ideology of competition can be toxic if viewed as necessary, natural, 'just the way things are and have to be', but you ignore the adverse effects which the elimination of competition necessarily has, which, as I have pointed out needs to also be taken into consideration when deciding whether and to what extent it is viable to opt for greater cooperation in a given situation. I'm able to think your position, while you fail to address where my analysis falls short, and at the same time claim that you know better than me.
I do think that you are getting there. If you were willing to get over your pride you should be able to understand where the flaw with your position lies right here and now.

[Anonymous No.11937084]

>>11937052
I grew up on a small farm and have worked harder than you ever will my entire life, prick. If my family had any sort of capital I would still have my home. You would have alot more humility and kindness if someone ever bothered to beat you, I know I would if I could reach you. I know what the grief accompanying loss feels like and I know how it feels to desire to kill to win a competition.

[Anonymous No.11937107]

>>11937084
this unironically makes me think of something memerson said about women who experienced tyranny at the hand of their parents, namely that they can't differentiate between domination and competence. you know, real cooperation between, say, romantic partners, entails that the persons involved support AND challenge each other. there is a type of competition to engage in which is incredibly beneficial and only marginally detrimental.

[Anonymous No.11937130]

>>11937084
He's right you know, your emotional outburst tells everybody everything they need to know. From this I can tell you're probably underage and naive, or just a sperg. But Im going to address some of your points anyway. Namely that you pointed that ideologies and economic systems based off competition are harmful to nature. This is correct, but you conveniently leave out the environmental havoc collectivism wreaked in the 20th or the fact that even ideologies based on competition economically can be flexible and recognize better environmental protections and policies simply because it allows for better long term competition. Also, post scarcity is highly unlikely to ever happen. Even in a fully automated world there is still limitations as to what we can achieve with resource abundance.

[Anonymous No.11937161]

>>11937130
Some decetive you are. Confindent in your ability to diagnose me, yet still such a poor analyst you didn't even realize what was implied when I listed state right next to capital as fictitious realities that are harmful.
>competition economically can be flexible and recognize better environmental protections and policies simply because it allows for better long term competition
A complete load of bullshit, mindlessly repeating propaganda from the likes of world Bank and CATO. The world bank, champion of that agrument, that capitalism can be ethical despite explicitly being amoral convenient keeps statistics on all their projects that say otherwise. I bought into that agrument too, when I was 14 and had little knowledge of the world around me.

[Anonymous No.11937180]

>>11932324
There are conflicts between people sometimes these conflicts are deemed important enough to justify violence
What the fuck are you talking about how exactly are you going to fix that?

[Anonymous No.11937182]

>>11937130
Furthermore in case you didn't realize I have made it explicit numerous times ITT that I have no problem with competive market economies, my problem is with capitalism. On top of that I made it clear that I do not think collectivized econmies, even liberterian collectivized econmies are a sutable alternative here >>11932758
Nor did I ever say anything about post scarcity.
If you think capitalism is defined by market type econmies, take it as a tell tale sign that you have no idea what capitalism even is.

[Anonymous No.11937184]

>>11937161
The State is the reality of the kingdom of heaven.

[Anonymous No.11937195]

>>11934769
>only right wingers misrepresent information
Yikes

[Anonymous No.11937213]

>>11937195
poltard spotted!

[Anonymous No.11937351]

>>11934769
It's because left wingers are morally color blind. They accept only two qualities of morality, whereas real humans accept all five produced by our species.
>care
>fairness
>purity
>loyalty
>authority
Guess which two left wingers understand, and which do they oppose or are blind to? We are distinct species. A laboratory test can tell which species you are.

[Anonymous No.11937370]

>>11937351
Speaking of psuedoscientific arguments to justify rightwing worldviews. . .

[Anonymous No.11937382]

>>11937370
>I define what is scientific
>Everything must be scientific to work
Seems like someone two steps from sociopathy.

[Anonymous No.11937446]

>>11937382
Science is defined by sound deductions from matters of fact. Your bullshit catagories of human moral traits are not even close to matters of fact established by the best methods. It is a load of bullshit. What methods were used to establish these catagories of moral qualities and what methods did you use to arrive at the "fact" that some are not present in leftists. What was given was a vain attempt to present your feelings as facts with a pathetic psuedoscientific explanation. "To the flames" as Hume would say.

[Anonymous No.11937487]

>>11937446
I suggest you read on the moral foundations theory.

[Anonymous No.11937680]

>>11937487
I think it is reasonable to assume that humans have a shared biologically grounded moral sense. That supposed theory, which I grauntee is far from a propet nomenclatural one, I bet anything the best it can do is serve as a useful hurestic for description. Is still just a theory and not the kind that is a theory of a universal law. Furthermore applying that theory to describe leftist is an empirical endeavor that relies on empirical evidence to make any relevant deduction about matters of fact(not theories of fact).
What kind of empirical evidence do you have for this supposed difference in the moral qualities of leftists? I guarantee at best you have pathetic statistical inferences, fitted to a hueristic. How do you explain that political opinions do in fact change?
Anyone with half a brain can tell you it is a matter of opinion rooted in sentimentality, of course sentimentality is effected by biological biases but sentiment does in fact change. To someone with a scientific background, sentiment doesn't effect opinion about facts, but only feelings about facts, so there is little tranistive relation between feeling and fact for matter of fact people.
Shove your psuedoscientific theory supposing feelings are fact up your ass and blow me.

[Anonymous No.11938269]

>this entire thread
LMAO
Anyone trying to justify violence is missing it's point or if living under a superceding authority.

[Anonymous No.11939143]

>>11936544
She's based of meguca? How did that arise?

[Anonymous No.11939193]

>>11932758
>He thinks Marxism is a project and not a metaphysical framework
Utter brainlet detected, thread discarded

[Anonymous No.11939240]

>>11936599
Shit, nigga, that was such a good post I screencapped it just so I can reread it later.

[Anonymous No.11939253]

>>11937680
>I think it is reasonable to assume that humans have a shared biologically grounded moral sense.
I don't. We can strap people to EEGs and read their political compass. We can damage healthy brains and produce open minded atheists.

[Anonymous No.11939315]

>>11936712
Kind of sort of. I mean, you have to talk to them, or at least talk in their presence. You could ignore this responsibility, but then you might end up with an autist. You don't have to actively "teach" them, but you have to be aware that they need to hear you speak in order to learn to speak themselves. That was a pointless nitpick, and highly debatable regardless.

[Anonymous No.11939363]

>>11939193
I never said marxism is a project sweetie, I said socialism. Marx is not the orginator of socialism. As someone who takes metaphysics-the logical study of what is universally true of our first principles-seriously I have a hard time excepting Marxism is a general "metaphysical framework" is that what you dogmatist kiddos have taken to calling Marxism since you can no longer claim dialetical materialism is a general framwork for scientific investagation? Or has it always been that way? Not like I take marxists seriously enough to pay attention lol.
If Marxism is metaphysics, how does it deal with part-whole relations, continuty, symmetry, transitivity, reflexivity, potential, ect.
I bet it's rubbish. Why? because you don't base metaphysics on theory, you base you interpret theory in accordance to metaphysics which is based on first principles. Dialetical materialism is a theory, it was conceptualized to be applied to empirical investagation, that is a theory not metaphysics. It is a psuedoscientific theory based on a bastardization of hegels metaphysics-a fundamentally flawed metaphysics that is acedemically uninhabitable, I add-to fit dialetics to data. It still has the same hegelian short coming, that being moves in stages with no metaphysical explanation to how those stages relate to each other in a continuous way. Any metaphysical theory that isn't one of relation and process is a joke to me. Neomarxists can publish all the apologetics they want but they won't get past that radical flaw.
As far has dialetical materialism as a theory goes it has it's advantages, nothing close to providing scientific explanations. Metaphysics starts at first principles, and is only applicable to metaphysics. The only thing that really underlaps metaphysics proper is phenomenology and matters of fact, and metaphysics proper is only overlapped by logic. Metaphysical theory designed for practical use is graunteed to be dogmatic garbage. Marxists claiming dialetical materialism is metaphysics, and claiming historical materialism is science is what I find most disdainful about Marxism. Both of those theories are psuedoscience.

Change my mind.( ͡͡• ͜ʖ ͡͡͡͡͡͡͡͡•)

[Anonymous No.11939398]

>>11939363
Let me change my position. Metaphysics is also underlapped by logic. Nothing properly overlaps metaphysics
That was an embarrassing mistake.

[Anonymous No.11939401]

>>11936802
>In absence of resource scarcity competition does not exist.
It is impossible to eliminate such a scarcity. Life naturally expands as fast as it can. All populations taken as a whole are a product of the available thermal energy that we can extract from our environment, and the ratio of the individual populations as well as the existence of individual members of each species, are a product of competition. If you don't eat the chicken, wolves will. If not wolves, flies. If not flies, bacteria, and so on and so forth. You are very naive to think you can eliminate competition. You can make competition more empathetic, more constructive (rather than destructive), but you cannot eliminate it unless you support the destruction of the human species (to eliminate all competition between humans, though this would require a population quota you enforce via abortions or murder) or all life on earth (for all competition). Moreover, anything other than a totalitarian regime would involve other forms of competition, such as those for sex and those for ideas.

[Anonymous No.11939554]

>>11939401
>It is impossible to eliminate such a scarcity.
Hold up right there.
First let us define resource scarcity. When there is not enough resources to meet the total demand of the system.
If we define resource scarcity simply as limited resources we run into the problem of having limited resources but still plenty to go around. Therefor scarcity determined by supply/demand. Things are scarce when supply doesn't meet demand.
Painfully obvious, I know.
1: There are countless situations where resource scarcity isnt a thing.
For example: right now in the room I am in there is plenty of space for more company.
2. There are countless situations when resource scarcity is a thing, but wouldn't be in a different concievable mode of organization.
For example: Two people fighting over a pizza. Easily remedied by cutting the pizza in half.
3. There are countless situations where resources are neccesarily scarce if those resources are being competed for, but wouldn't be scare if competion was replaced with another mode of interaction.
For example: two men compete with each other for potential mates by attempting to dominate each other. If they decided to be each other's wingman and cooperatively help bloster each others personalities, they can both look more desirable and find mates without competiting against each other.
I could go on with more points. What I am trying to say is viewing competition as a necessary part of life, is not only afactual, but severely limits our ability for modal-thinking. Furthermore a political economy that makes competion necessary, such as capitalism, not only severely limits our ability to think modally, but limits our freedom to act modally. So even if our potential thoughts are not limited (a personal handicap) our potential actions are limited (an ecological handicap).
The effects of such ideaologies and economies are disasterous, possibly even existentially threatening.
My purpose ITT is to point out that, the capitalist/authoritarian bastardization of the "survival of the fittest" principle is not factual, and that there are plenty of ways to go about business otherwise. I do not think competition is a bad thing at all, it's often appropriate. I am simply saying that conceptually and physically enslaving ourselves to it, is a maladaptive, fucked up way to live. This could be quantified by fitting it to a measure of niche breadth. which isn't something I'm interested in doing but it's a useful term to conceptualize it. Same with terminology like adaptive capacity if you like to think in systems. Though scientific theories as such aren't quite as applicable as philsophical logic.
Alright now that I got the first sentence out of the way I can read the rest of your post. Hopefully I touched some fundamental flaw at the get-go and won't have to spend much time addressing the rest.

[Anonymous No.11939570]

>>11932324
>competition isn't necessary
Slave mentality

[Anonymous No.11939573]

>>11939570
It's not necessary, but it's fun and healthy. It stops being fun when people start cheating or ignoring rules, moral or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11939578]

>Blah blah I'm a huge pussy

[Anonymous No.11939586]

>>11939570
The opposite actually
>Competiting because you feel like it's, "the natural thing to do"
>Competiting when other means would suit your interests better, because you think competion is necessary and can't think beyond the bounds of competition.
>Not competiting because you feel like it
>Needing to justify your actions with a universal principle like, "survival of the fittest"
Now that's what a slave mentality looks like.
I only have a cursory understanding Neitzsche from reading his Wikipedia page along time ago and even I can tell how painfully bad/shallow that take is. Cringeworthy attempt.

[Anonymous No.11939595]

>>11939573
Cheating is impossible as any life form will use its advantages to get ahead. Rules are put in place to control and limit other life forms by those wth power.
The more egalitarian a society is the more violent it becomes due to the lack of legal frameworks to govern this

[Anonymous No.11939620]

>>11939595
>Cheating is impossible as any life form will use its advantages to get ahead.
Are you jewish, by any chance? What you are saying is simply not the case.
All of you mammals have "play circuits" in the brains. This means that the offspring of mammals play with one another and potentially their parents.
This change has validated many alternative strategies, with humans having the greatest on the planet: cooperative competition, and has evolved even since. Group cohesion means that all play, and all play by the rules among themselves and among others. All antisocial behavior is shunned and shut down when encountered.
Even rats play fair.

[Anonymous No.11939634]

>>11939586
How would co-operation suit my interests better?
You realize they've done these prisoner experiments for years and it's nearly always better to betray than to co-operate in any version

[Anonymous No.11939667]

>>11939554
>For example: right now in the room I am in there is plenty of space for more company.
There is still finite space.
>For example: Two people fighting over a pizza. Easily remedied by cutting the pizza in half.
Still finite amount of pizza. Not sure how that gets around anything.
>For example: two men compete with each other for potential mates by attempting to dominate each other. If they decided to be each other's wingman and cooperatively help bloster each others personalities, they can both look more desirable and find mates without competiting against each other.
They are still competing against other wingman pairs.

None of your examples got around competition in the slightest, they just moved them to coarser grains of focus.
>My purpose ITT is to point out that, the capitalist/authoritarian bastardization of the "survival of the fittest"
Nobody here is arguing for social darwinism, but your attempts to eliminate competition entirely are naive.
>Alright now that I got the first sentence out of the way I can read the rest of your post. Hopefully I touched some fundamental flaw at the get-go and won't have to spend much time addressing the rest.
Discard your naive hope.

[Anonymous No.11939703]

>>11939634
Have you never played a team sport?
Virgin.
Anyways the point is justifying your actions by rationalizing them to fit some ideal is a cuck-mentality. A master just does things because that's what they wish to do, they don't need a reason.

[Anonymous No.11939778]

>>11939667
>There is still finite space.
>Still finite amount of pizza. Not sure how that gets around anything.
Holy shit I literally addressed this explicitly in the beginning of my post. I felt silly for pointing out something as obvious like scarcity is a function of supply and demand. It's the very first thing I did, and I thought it was a obvious but I did it anyways to be rigorus.
I try to be empathetic but I don't see how you could miss that unless you are; very spun, stupid(or pretending to be for the lols) or didn't even bother reading my post. If any of those above cases are true you have no reason to be talking to me and I definitely will not bother taking with taking you seriously anymore.
>They are still competing against other wingman pairs.
No there is not, I did not make any mention of such an entity. If you really are that limited in your ability for abstract thought, and I am genuinely sorry for you if that is the case, it might help you to imagine it as two men at a party were everyone else is a potential mate and they are the only two people there trying to get laid.
>but your attempts to eliminate competition entirely are naive.
You must be having a laugh, fuck off lol. Good one.
>Discard your naive hope
Done.

[Anonymous No.11939840]

>>11939778
>Holy shit I literally addressed this explicitly in the beginning of my post.
Should half a pizza hold more value than a whole pizza? Should a mansion be valued more than a studio apartment? You are trying to philosophize away the limits of a finite planet with "dude, sharing lmao", which is either naive, retarded, or both. Have you ever considered the possibility that YOU are the brainlet?
>No there is not, I did not make any mention of such an entity.
That is entirely my point. You are changing the granularity of focus as if solving a single instance of competition can be extrapolated to solving all competition. Delineate your fantastical utopian leprechaun scenario so we can all laugh at what a retard you are. You tried earlier; how well did that work out?

[Anonymous No.11939926]

>>11939840
>Should half a pizza hold more value than a whole pizza?
If there is only one pizza
and two people are competiting for it because they are hungry.
And each persons hunger would be satisfied by half a pizza
If they both agreed to stop competiting for the whole pizza
And cut the pizza in two
They could both meet their demands by the given supply
Effectively ending the pizza-scarcity
>You are trying to philosophize away the limits of a finite planet with "dude, sharing lmao"
That is absolutely not what I am doing, the purpose of my pizza example was to show that there are possible ways to handle resource scarcity other than competition.
>You are changing the granularity of focus as if solving a single instance of competition can be extrapolated to solving all competition
I have no choice but to start throwing books at you, if that doesn't work I will be forced to start hocking loogies. Please don't make me bully you.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-epistemology/

[Anonymous No.11939933]

Violence should only be used against those that want to oppress. Fascists, the state, companies, etc. I'd love to be non-violent but unfortunately at this moment I cannot.

t. Anarchist

[Anonymous No.11940032]

>>11939926
>That is entirely my point. You are changing the granularity of focus as if solving a single instance of competition can be extrapolated to solving all competition. Delineate your fantastical utopian leprechaun scenario so we can all laugh at what a retard you are. You tried earlier; how well did that work out?
You really aren't getting this, are you? Who said there was a pizza to begin with? Why is there a pizza? That pizza was made by someone from bread and cheese. There is a finite amount of bread and cheese that this world can produce. On top of that, you have not explained how the pizza was produced, nor how it was decided who should produce the pizza. Once again, you've tried to discount the general problem by changing the granularity of focus on a specific problem.
>That is absolutely not what I am doing, the purpose of my pizza example was to show that there are possible ways to handle resource scarcity other than competition.
And you have utterly failed to do so.
>I have no choice but to start throwing books at you, if that doesn't work I will be forced to start hocking loogies. Please don't make me bully you.
I assure you, you are far too stupid to bully anyone from behind a keyboard.

[Anonymous No.11940149]

>>11940032
Sure thing dum dum.

[Anonymous No.11940168]

>>11940149
>Sure thing dum dum.
Irony.

[Anonymous No.11940182]

>>11939703
>>11939620
Haha ah yes
>muh idealism is so scientific and true
>only virgin cuck Jews disagree!

Fuck off you massive twat, does my head in when leftists try to use this alt-right lingo to bully people over to their side.
Why don't you read more than just Wikipedia articles before you vomit this pseudo intellectual rubbish

[Anonymous No.11940232]

>>11940182
S E E T H I N G
those are two different people btw.
And anyone who has played a team sport should understand that competiting with your teammates during the game to the point of disfunction knows that competition isn't as important as cooperation during such circumstances.
Literally mad I called someone a virgin ironically. Keep calm and carry on virgin, literally nobody cares about your virginity. That's why you still have it.

[Anonymous No.11940709]

>>11940232
You can't even justify yourself without seething and childish name calling
Like I said, come back when you've read more than a few Reddit posts and wiki articles to spit out this brainless "philosophy" you think is so novel

[Anonymous No.11940975]

>>11940709
You can't even come up with an arguments. Lol cuck.