My view is this. The 20th century and social media have moderately to severely exacerbated the simplification of viewpoints and discussion topics already found in humans; the proclivity to simplify the oppositions argument as a way to cut corners on concepts to understand them more easily has been made worse by volatile ideologies over the past 100 years.
The reason I think it is not all the 20th centurys' and social medias fault is that this attitude can be seen if you go back in time as well to watch discussions regarding politics - I want to be clear that I only think of the last centurys' political and technological trends as having a negative impact but on a trend already demonstrated by humanity. Additionally the trend I'm seeing could be the result of it being more easy for people to share their opinion due to the increasing "democritisation of information" just due to the accessibility of social media but I digress.
The actions taken by the Third Reich in the 20th century horrified all who were made aware of it: the nature of WWII and of the holocaust need no introduction by me (this may be apart of this wider problem I'll go into with bandwith issues but again I digress) It seems possible to me that due to such horrific acts being commited by "Ordinary Men", of whom's political aims they themselves thought were righteous, that people in at least the West had as a result naturally defaulted to a state of defense when their beliefs are questioned and a state of offense when someone else has a different viewpoint to them. I'll return to this later
2 years post WWII the Cold War began. If you don't know about the Cold War then it can be described well as the geopolitical tension between America and Russia over who should have Western power post WWII due to their alliance in helping to stop the International Nazi Takeover that had started by invasion of Poland on the 1st of September 1939. The atmosphere geopolitically amongst the public from 1947 to 1991 was that if you weren't Pro-America then you were a Communist. "Communist until proven guilty" This kind of culture seems to be inadvertently created by a government that likely rightly wanted to guard against the nuclear end times and Communist takeover that so many in the time had feared as it went against eveyething that was American to them. This was, I predict, the next major step in the inflammation of the divisive "political-razor"
After this came, as organisms have always tried to propega
... keep reading on reddit β‘
TL;DR - Just read the bold stuff
A number of you have already been asking me about the American Philosophical Society, so I figured I'd do an AMA.
First off, no, it's not a society of philosophy-majors (as cool as that would be). It's a body of scholars (philosophers - lovers of wisdom) that meet biannually to discuss awesome topics. We were founded by Ben Franklin in 1743 and are the oldest learned society in America (other examples include the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences). The purpose is to "promote useful knowledge" - and we do that by providing a forum for scientists, lawyers, doctors, scholars of all disciplines, leaders, artists, and others to get together and inspire one another.
We have a lot of cool members ranging from Ruth Patrick to Justice Ginsberg to Yo Yo Ma. A number of our founding fathers were members and Thomas Jefferson included his tenure as President of the APS as one of the three achievements he wanted listed on his tombstone. Darwin was a member, Lewis and Clark studied with us before embarking on their journey, and lots of other cool historical figures are part of the APS history.
Lastly, some housekeeping: (1) [edit: no longer relevant], (2) this is an AMA, so feel free to ask anything (23/m/Philly) - though I reserve the right to be snarky, and (3) my views and opinions are my own - I do not represent the society in any way.
[edit] Seeing as this isn't as popular as I thought it might be, feel free to ask personal questions.
[edit 2 (3:30am EDT)] Alright, feel free to ask more questions, but I won't get around to answering them until the morning. Oh, and before any of you start posting more philosophy questions, I majored in Political Science, specifically Comparative Studies, and only have a passing interest in proper philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy proper philosophy, but you're more likely to get a better response from me if you ask about electoral theory or game theory, as these relate to my education.
Based on what is told about the emergence of Society (which is actually not that much), we know that it is loosely based on Platon's Republic, and the idea of a very segmented society.
We also know that the Society as Darrow experiences it, is not what the society was "supposed" to be (I think?). The Reds, for instance, were supposed to be workers and not slaves (I admit it's not clear whether Pinks where supposed to be prostitutes from the start or if it happened later).
Now that being said, Golds - especially Peerless scarred - are incredibly intelligent people. Not just war-smart, but also very well versed in philosophy, history, literature, poetry, music, art, politics and so on.
And I'm wondering at what point did they stop caring about what Society had become? How do they reconcile what it is, with what it was supposed to be? How could they actually believe it was possible to enslave people and never face uprisings etc... ?
I'm just curious about people thoughts on the matter...
Where: American Philosophical Society (Location and Directions)
When: This Sunday, 1pm - 4pm
Entrance is free, donations are appreciated.
Besides their normal stuff, APS currently has Tempus Fugit and Transit of Venus. The Transite of Venus exhibit ends Sunday, and Simon says it's a good time, so come check it out before it's gone. Simon is working Sunday, so hopefully should be able to give us a personal run through the exhibits!
Where to meet me: The museum has doors on either side of the building, but both lead to the same place. Just come inside and meet me outside the main exhibit on the 1st floor.
After I expect the exhibits will take around 2 hours to go through, I'm certainly up for continuing to hang out with people afterwards.
This week we're going to the American Philosophical Society's museum. Their current exhibit, Of Elephants and Roses, will be closing on December 31st. The greenhouse project across this street will be closing this week, so now's our last chance to check it out!
- What: American Philosophical Society
- Where: 104 South 5th street (there's a photo of the building here, if that helps you find it)
- When: Sunday, December 11th. 1 pm.
- How much? Free!
I'll wait right outside the entrance, and we can head in together. If you're running late, just come on in; it shouldn't be difficult to find us inside.
After we visit APS, anyone who wants to stick around can come to the Second Bank Portrait Gallery, which is on the next block over. You can also visit Independence Hall while you're in the area, as it's next door to APS, but you'll need to pick up (free) tickets in advance.
Hope to see you there!
I know that people in our society are judged based on their added value to society. You are useful thus you belong to society. I was curious at what are the philosophical arguments to include people who are not useful in the sense of work.
Note: I don't mean to offend anyone with this question. I personally know someone close to my heart that is severely disabled and will never be able to work. However, this person changed my life in a way no other things could have ever had and I believe this is an added value for me. I am just asking at the philosophical known arguments.
Thanks
