Funny AND affirms my worldview? How can I lose?
While reading over some old articles in The Onion today, I couldn't help but chuckle relentlessly at this little gem.
"Skeptic Pitied"
I adore how it so clearly describes this astonishing (to me) and ubiquitous worldview, where people modularise their understanding of the world to such a degree that they will understand and embrace rational and ( Read more... )
"Skeptic Pitied"
I adore how it so clearly describes this astonishing (to me) and ubiquitous worldview, where people modularise their understanding of the world to such a degree that they will understand and embrace rational and ( Read more... )
Simple. On paper.
Reply
It seems the central problem of communist theory is that it assumes the most useful level of organisation to 'correct' social problems on is the level of the nation, rather than the individual (or even sub-community or peer group). This is not, and never has been, the case.
Reply
On paper, this is a flawless theory. That people will only work for the benifit of themselves as individuals is conjecture...though it happens to be correct, so far as I'm concerned.
I maintain that the statement "Communism works on paper/in theory" is a sound one.
Reply
Reply
Reply
What the paper doesn't take into account is Hurricane Martha, which comes through and rips the fucking thing to pieces.
If the paper version had taken weather and all other contributing factors into account, it would be instead a bridge that works IN REAL LIFE. Not just in paper.
Sure, you could say "but anyone who has a higher learning in engineering would take that into account!" but no. That's why it only works ON PAPER. Not IN PRACTICE. Because obviously the guy writing the paper overlooked something.
This is similar to saying "rational self-interest has been a robust cultural assumption since the time of Hobbes!" Yeah, of course. But, if one were to overlook the fact that for this very reason, Communism would never work IN PRACTICE, it seems like a perfectly good idea. Everyone wants to better the species, right? Haven't you ever seen Star Trek? Here, let me draw you a diagram
Reply
If we're making a bridge analogy, human response isn't the 'Hurricane Martha' of communism, it is the bridge traffic. Much like cars (or pedestrians) are to a bridge, daily human life and activity is what communism is intended to deal with, the very purpose of its design! I think we can agree that a bridge that doesn't deal with its intended traffic (let's say, one without lanes or flat surfaces), is a shitty bridge indeed, sir ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I will of course not challenge the claim that communism does appear to work on paper to many people who read it (you can find the evidence for this in any sociology class in the western hemisphere, the occurrence is overwhelming). But even in the realm of design-space (referred to here as 'paper') there is a fundamental difference between working and appearing to work.
When any design is taking place, a reasonable assumption to make is that the information that goes into the design process will be information pertinent to the function of the design. One expects reliable bridge-designs from an engineer, but would not hold similar expectations for a bridge-design penned by an investment-banker.
The very process of crediting that a design may in fact "work", is based on the assumption that the design was carried out in a sufficiently informed manner. The reality of this as an "assumption" becomes all the more ( ... )
Reply
Why do so many people say that "Communism works well on paper, but not in real life"?Was the question, and the answer is because people AREN'T schooled in sociology. They are, in fact, ignorant; which is the entire point of saying to someone "yes, but on paper COMMUNISM works!" If you're asking how anyone educated, well-informed person can put any stock in communism as its presented on paper, then I'm as boggled as you. My point is simply that for whatever reason, whether it be ignorance on the part of the onlooker or the lack of research done by the designer, communism looks perfectly feasible from a theoretical standpoint ( ... )
Reply
What it really comes down to is, similar to when we were talking about a bridge design differentially accounting for traffic or a hurricane, it would be wrong to say than an idea 'doesn't work on paper' because it didn't consider an extreme improbability or insurmountable inconvenience, and it is also wrong to say that an idea 'does work on paper' when it didn't consider instances both highly predictable and central to its function.
Interpretations on behalf of a responder withstanding, 'working on paper' is an assessment of design. As such one's only real criteria for judging this potential workability, is the degrees to which the design itself ( ... )
Reply
Under this non-principled understanding, I suppose one definitively could argue that communism works on paper. The only question that remains would be, "Should it?"
Reply
Reply
There are, however, rational arguments, which (excluding specific situations of inflexible ideologies) are equally accessible, or at least learnable, to everyone. From the viewpoint of rational argument, you're in the best position to be right when you have more information, and a cohesive logical framework to make sense of it.
These are the best arguments, ultimately, as they will offer the closest approximations to an 'objective reality' on the situation. I suppose that's why the scientific ideal is to reduce paradigm-laden value judgements, wherever possible, to rational arguments of literal fact and process. Then we get somewhere.
Reply
Reply
Which is why the best arguments are those engaged on the rational level, where we all speak the same 'language' of reason, and there is no denying a superior point.
To summarise, if science were a person, I would never stop blowing him/her.
Reply
Leave a comment