Monday, May 10, 2010

251: On Property (in Second Life)

Second LifeImage via Wikipedia

To call Second Life a Virtual reality is a nice metaphor, good for marketing purposes, but it is obvious a mistake. The correct name should be Real Unreality.

It is real so far as we see the animated and interactive screen in front of us, but the content of the screen has hardly any relation with reality. Nothing that really shapes us as human beings and controls our lives, exists in Second Life.

To mention a few things: Death, disease, capital crimes like murder, natural disasters like earthquakes or leaking oil wells, starvation, terrorists, fear for your life, fear for illegal imprisonment,

accidents in all flavors, sick and dying relatives or children, depression, pain, loneliness…do I have to go on? For whatever you like to do here nobody asks you to show your certificate of competency or level of education, licenses or permits, all kinds of forms filled out in threefold etc.

It is not that I wish to disqualify Second Life, it is about the level of reality we find in SL and any other virtual world. What could be called real is our communication and emotional attachment to this world and persons in this world and the Linden dollars which we convert into real dollars.

And most fascinating is that what looks the most real, the land we own, the things we make and own as our private property,are the farthest away from reality.

In Second Life is private property really 100% PRIVATE. The owner is entitled to do with it what pleases him, whether it is just a single box prim or 5 sims crowded with houses, rentals, stores, role-play groups and so on.

Suppose he let everyone live on a parcel in his sims. Feel free to do so and enjoy….. These sims are really private property in the most extreme way: the owner can do with his property whatever he likes. So he decides to stop paying the tier. He is done with Second Life…too dull for him.

So he reports to Linden Lab that he abandons the land per date x. He even doesn't inform the "inhabitants" of the sim. And the sims just disappear at date x. THAT is 100% private property in Second Life. Far from reality.

In the preceding lecture I said that it makes a difference to own a chair or a company. I claimed that I could do with the chair whatever I liked…..burn it ..smash it, paint it…whatever…But after second thought I now conclude that even with my very own chair I am not allowed to do whatever I like.

Maybe all is allowed as long as I stay in my apartment together with my chair, but no matter how much I hate that chair, I am not allowed to throw it out of my window of the apartment building at the 15th floor.

All this may show, how difficult the concept of private property in our society is to grasp. What solutions and interpretations are there? We may start with the basic questions.

How, we may ask, would humans come to appropriate the land and its fruits? How could such appropriation be justified? What would be rational grounds for claiming exclusive possession? And could there be any limit on people’s right to do what they would with their own?

“Our property,” said Gregory the Great (c. 540 – 12 March 604), “is ours to distribute, but not ours to keep.” The concept of the owner as steward is the core of the traditional Christian view of property.

By the seventeenth century, property rights came to be grounded in the needs and accomplishments of the individual owner, and ownership implied a natural right to enjoy and dispose of its objects, limited only by the duty to respect the rather narrowly defined interests of others.

According to John Locke (1632 – 28 October 1704) you create private property by adding your labor to a so called res nullius, a common resource, like a piece of land, or wood you chopped, or a stone you carved. To own it gave you also the right to transfer ownership to somebody else, although he did not put any labor in it.

You will understand that the justification of private property based on the idea of "the fruits of one's labor" may be applicable in an agricultural society, but when your labor is only applied to a part of a product in an industrial society, what is then the fruit of your labor?

In a complex industrial society, “the fruits of one’s labor” can mean only the value of a given worker’s contribution to the finished product. But value derives from the relations of supply and demand, both for the commodity and for labor of the various kinds needed to produce it.

As you can imagine, this observation leads to a lot of complex questions in relation to private property. The fruit of one's effort is translated into wages, which become linked with the system of demand and supply.

And is the wage private property? And what about a government which a priori claims a part of it calling it income taxes……
I am still not there, still not sure in what sense I really can call something private property….

Just for your information, in my research I stumbled upon a trail against the avatar Rase Kenzo. He was in Real World sued for making and selling copies of inworld products of an inworld company named Eros. This was in November 2007. No idea, what the final verdict was. Needs more research.

This is the URL, where you find the article I discovered: http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005816.html


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: the article contains a like to a PDF with the accusation...really heavy artillery
[13:24] herman Bergson: and also a very peculiar example of property rights
[13:24] herman Bergson: so much on the subject for today
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: That is about intellectual property..... the creation in sl, i think
[13:25] Natsuo Winslet: It's not at all obvious that Locke's theory could be applied in the case of intellectual property.
[13:26] herman Bergson: No that too Natsu
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: IP is a little *complicated* i think.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: But SL property is at least defined by RL Copyright laws
[13:27] herman Bergson: thinks are not working properly here
[13:27] herman Bergson: Kiki's words didnt show up
[13:28] herman Bergson: I see you type but nothing shows Kiki
[13:28] Art Mint: I am confused: if SL is not reality as for the premise you made Herman how can an avatar be sued in the real world?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Not the avatar was sued but a Mr. Thomas Simon from New York
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: because, it is the person behind the avatar that stole ppl's IP--intellectual property
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:29] oola Neruda: i have a friend who is a rl artist... sold a painting to someone who used it at their company...
[13:29] Art Mint: but happened in a non real world?
[13:29] oola Neruda: they changed it a little bit then used it as a repeated and dominant part of their newsletters
[13:29] oola Neruda: the artist was livid
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Art that was the special thing in that law suit...
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: oola, i thnk that is the *tricky* part about laws regarding IP---ppl could get around to it
[13:30] herman Bergson: But you should read the accusations...
[13:30] Art Mint: wellL is as real as reality...
[13:30] oola Neruda: his reputaion as an artist was affected by the changes made
[13:30] Natsuo Winslet: oola, did he sue?
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: for example, it says the exact code for a software is protected....but not so with the patterns, maths involved in...
[13:31] oola Neruda: at the time... i don't think all of the info was resolved
[13:31] oola Neruda: do not know
[13:31] oola Neruda: whose property was it?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Neither do I know the outcome of that lawsuit agains Thomas Simon
[13:32] herman Bergson: I am curious to learn what the verdict was and the motivation
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: i think an expert in IP laws could successfully "steal" without violating any laws
[13:32] Natsuo Winslet: Letters are an interesting case.
[13:32] Natsuo Winslet: If I send you a letter, i believe the object is your property, but the content, the words, remain my property.
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: like oola's example, that they modified before using it....the art is on how to modify it
[13:32] oola Neruda: oh Natsu... wow
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: So in the case of your friend oola,
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: I guess the company would own the picture s/he made...
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: but maybe s/he would own the image.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Which means I amy not publish your letter to me without your consent, Natsu?
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: Yes, I believe so.
[13:33] oola Neruda: one of a kind painting
[13:34] oola Neruda: letter?
[13:34] oola Neruda: what about plagerism then
[13:34] oola Neruda: is that not a form of it
[13:34] Natsuo Winslet: I would think so.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Welll at least we have to look into the difference between intellectual property and material property and what they have in common
[13:35] herman Bergson: I am beginning to believe that there doesnt exist any private property at all
[13:35] Art Mint: I am thinking that maybe property rights in SL are similar if not the same than in RL, only modified by TOS clauses
[13:35] Natsuo Winslet: Well, in the case of intellectual property, as I said, it's not clear how Locke's idea of mixing labor with something would work. Though perhaps one can see a way to apply it.
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: :/
[13:35] herman Bergson: What exists are rules and regulations which define or rights in relation to the things around us
[13:36] Art Mint: of course if we accept that property rights are the same we should also accept sl as a reality
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well intellectual property is always represented by some material product..a book a painting...a theory on paper
[13:37] Daruma Boa: well its a part of reality
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: i'm just wondering about the case mentioned just now....so...if a sim owner decides to abandon the sim, then all parcel owners would lose the land with no warnings or refund?
[13:37] Natsuo Winslet: Not necessarily, herman.
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: if so....that's nasty....
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...I made the story up, but today I heard it back literally...
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: wow
[13:38] Art Mint: yes it happens Kiki
[13:38] herman Bergson: friend of mine went on vacation for a few days...
[13:38] herman Bergson: when he came home the sim where he had rented land was gone...just gone including all his belongings there
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: would what the parcel owner create go back to his inventory? or lost too
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: wow
[13:39] Daruma Boa: oh 2 bad
[13:39] herman Bergson: All is gone...vanished into thin air...not a note not a message or warning...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: what i hate the most is what i spent lots of time writing or creating suddenly become no more
[13:40] Daruma Boa: did he write a note to lindens?
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is the consequence of the fact that Linden does not define private property or just in the crude sense...
[13:40] Art Mint: mmm is the concept of property different across the globe? If so that makes defining it in sl even more complicated
[13:40] herman Bergson: It happened today so I dont know what the next step will be
[13:41] Daruma Boa: i read about some probs on the sl news page
[13:41] oola Neruda: yes it is different across the globe
[13:41] herman Bergson: But what is interesting in this SL situation is that it proofs that we do not accept the definition of private property in this way
[13:41] Art Mint: si with which one we compare sl's?
[13:41] oola Neruda: in malawi... land is used, not owned.. the head men say.. you may use this particular spot...but when you leave or die it reverts back to the village and the head man allows another to use it...
[13:42] herman Bergson: that you can do with you property as you like regardless anything or anybody
[13:42] Daruma Boa: humans always want to own things "save";-)
[13:42] Natsuo Winslet: oola, is that a different concept of property? Or just a case where there is no property?
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, as ppl pay "tier"---fees for usage....so ppl are only renting land rather than owning land
[13:42] oola Neruda: it is a concept of property
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes oola... group property
[13:43] oola Neruda: the area i am thinking of has a lot of just unused land around it
[13:43] herman Bergson: I mentioned that in the former lecture
[13:43] Natsuo Winslet: Well we have group property int he west too.
[13:43] oola Neruda: this was unused but it was acquired by getting permission to use it
[13:43] herman Bergson: Oh yes....
[13:43] Natsuo Winslet: A club owns a car; the chair can give the car to a member to use on a particular day.
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Natsu like we have common property....
[13:44] Natsuo Winslet: But oola, in what sense was it acquired with that permission? Why not just say it was borrowed, or used, with permission?
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: and residing on other ppl's place does not give a sense of safety
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: because it can be withdrawn any time....
[13:44] herman Bergson: the park is 'owned ' or may be used by everybody...no restriction
[13:44] herman Bergson: however the tenniscourt is owned by a group..the tennis club
[13:45] herman Bergson: and the other system is private property...
[13:45] Natsuo Winslet: Hi Pia
[13:45] Pia Janic: hey:) hi all:)
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: .hi pia
[13:45] herman Bergson: We live in a society where you find a mix, and where it is hard to find a definition of private property
[13:45] oola Neruda: this is a long story... but the base line is that there is no ownership by anyone
[13:45] oola Neruda: not anyone
[13:45] Daruma Boa: hi pia
[13:46] oola Neruda: it is just that the headman is allowed to tell people they have permission to do ... whatever
[13:46] oola Neruda: it saves arguments
[13:46] oola Neruda: over... i put the labor into this
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well oola..ownership as such is also a special subject..I will discuss that next lexture...
[13:47] oola Neruda: if you do not treat the land properly the permission can be revoked also
[13:47] Natsuo Winslet: But aren't ownership and property just two sides of the same coin?
[13:47] oola Neruda: not in malawi
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: which means, we live in a society where one can't possibly be isolated from social influences, some of which might be even compulsory
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: not in Holland either
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes natsu....
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: that some choices we make cant be that free...because there are many things to consider
[13:48] Natsuo Winslet: But your description, oola, suggests exactly what I was suggesting; the land isn't property because nobody owns it. What is added in saying something is property once it is agreed that no-one owns it?
[13:48] herman Bergson: As I said last time...it is a triad: Owner - Object - third Party
[13:48] herman Bergson: I own a chair in society
[13:48] oola Neruda: the original question ... i thought... was... is the concept the same everywhere
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: Rousseau's theroy seems to begin to make sense to me gradually....
[13:49] herman Bergson: IN what way Kiki
[13:49] Natsuo Winslet: Right. But I wondered whether the situation you described was a different concept of property or a case where there was no property. If it's a different concept of property, one has to say what is involved in being property. And if no-owns that thing, I can't see what can be meant in saying it's property.
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles... you should be a lawyer...
[13:50] Natsuo Winslet: Maybe I am. :)
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles...
[13:50] herman Bergson smiles
[13:50] Natsuo Winslet: Actually, it's worse. I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer.
[13:50] oola Neruda: saying that nobody has property is a concept about the idea of property
[13:51] Natsuo Winslet: Ahhh, OK.
[13:51] herman Bergson: well you have common property, group property (oola's example) and individually ownd property
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: that in civilized society... things get complicated...ppl are less capable of living on his/her own...and have to abide by lots of artificial rules, which are unnatural
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Lili it si a point to consider...
[13:52] oola Neruda: and there are some countries where land has been nationalized
[13:52] herman Bergson: Kiki, I mean...
[13:52] oola Neruda: distributed evenly so to speak
[13:52] Art Mint: well property is not acquired only thru work, capital gains are an a example of a different way of obtaining property
[13:52] herman Bergson: makes it group property oola
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: ?
[13:53] oola Neruda: k
[13:53] herman Bergson: the government decides the use of the resources
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: yes oola
[13:54] herman Bergson: common property means that nobody can call for any restriction of access to the resources
[13:54] Art Mint: ..unless we accept the idea that stockholders work...:)
[13:54] herman Bergson: That Art is an extra problem.....
[13:54] herman Bergson: people who do no labor at all but just fund money to others and wait for the dividend
[13:55] Art Mint: yes
[13:55] herman Bergson: complicates the property question even more
[13:55] Natsuo Winslet: Usuaiiy. Forbidden to Christians.
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes....
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: i think that was why marxism was developed....
[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you mean muslims Natsu..the are not allowed to ask for interest
[13:55] Daruma Boa: oh - i am sorry. i have to go now.
[13:56] oola Neruda: another friend... land was nationalized... family's land was taken... father and uncle went into village... villagers stoned them
[13:56] Natsuo Winslet: Christians too, herman.
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Daruma
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:56] Natsuo Winslet: That's why they had the Jews act as moneylenders.
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oola, where is that friend from?
[13:56] Daruma Boa: but will do my best to be back next week;-)
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: which country?
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: south africa?
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: Rhodesia
[13:56] oola Neruda: this was the exit of the shah of iran
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:56] oola Neruda: i am elderly
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: thats a while back
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: so em I
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: this kind of story is very familiar to me actually
[13:57] oola Neruda: smiles to abrax
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: I saw the first moon landing live
[13:57] Natsuo Winslet: Me too.
[13:57] herman Bergson: Me two ㋡
[13:57] oola Neruda: me too... on my birthday
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:58] Natsuo Winslet: What a great present, oola.
[13:58] herman Bergson: cool
[13:58] Art Mint: me too but I won't say it:)
[13:58] oola Neruda: in my ... over 15
[13:58] herman Bergson smiles
[13:58] oola Neruda: parr.... teeee
[13:58] herman Bergson: As we are drifting away from our subject I suggest we prepare for the next lecture ...
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes
[13:59] herman Bergson: So...may I thank you for your participation
[13:59] Natsuo Winslet: Thank you, herman.
[13:59] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ty for an amazing lecture professor
[13:59] Art Mint: ty:)
[13:59] Natsuo Winslet: Take care everyone.
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor and all.....it was again a nice lecture
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: tc Natsuo
[13:59] herman Bergson: thank you
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: yes amazing lecture
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: I am gonna ponder some on it
[14:00] herman Bergson: Do so Abraxas ㋡
[14:00] Art Mint: bye everybody:)
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: bye Art
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: my friends.. see you nexttime
[14:01] oola Neruda: be well
[14:01] herman Bergson: Be well Abraxas
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: ty and you 2 to
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

LECTURE 2 5 0 .....!!! On Property


The key question that divides political philosophers returns to whether it is the group or the individual that should be the political unit of analysis.

And a second key question could be: what ought to be a person’s relationship to society, where it is a point of debate whether we see society as a collection of individuals or as a collection of groups.

We have reached a point in history where we are at the threshold of a completely new world, the industrialized world.

This will have a great impact on how society will be organized, on the increase of wealth, the growth of institutionalized education, mass production.

And although it has been an issue through the ages, now it is even more urgent with the increase of material prosperity to ask the question about property: who owns what and how is this justified?

This especially at the dawn of the controversy that will arise between liberalism and socialism and even maybe more relevant as we see a shift in European countries

from government owned institutions like hospitals, telecom, energy companies and railways to privatization of such important institutions.

This all based on the belief that the market (supply and demand economics) is the best mechanism to rule us.

So before we continue our journey along the path of the political philosophers, I first want to have a clear mind about the phenomenon we call PROPERTY.

Property is a general term for rules governing access to and control of land and other material resources. And where are rules there are rule makers, that is, there is dispute about rules.

When you think of property you may be inclined to think primarily of private property and even have a clear idea of what it means to say : this is MINE! However, is it that simple?

We may say that property can be defined by the rules,which control the individual's access to certain resources, like "it is free, take one" or " no you can't take that, John made it, so it is his."

There are three species of property arrangement: common property, collective property, and private property.

In a common property system, resources are governed by rules whose point is to make them available for use by all or any members of the society. Everybody is free to use the land and water, for instance. or use the park for recreation and sports.

If there are rules of restriction, they only aim at keeping the property free and open for everyone, forbidding anyone to put a fence around a piece of land for instance.

Collective property: the community as a whole determines how important resources are to be used. This is based on mechanisms of collective decision-making related to the social interest of the resources.

These decisions may be made by a group of wise men or it may be like in the former Soviet Union be a decision in the form of a long term plan how agricultural resources have to be produced and distributed.

Private property is an alternative to both collective and common property. In a private property system, property rules are organized around the idea that various contested resources are assigned to the decisional authority of particular individuals (or families or firms).

But how private is private? When something is my private property do I have absolute authority in the decision on what I can do with the property?

I own a car, but I am forbidden to drive through town at 200 miles per hour. I own a house, happens to be a building form the 16th century. I am forbidden to tear it down and replace it with a new house.

All of a sudden private doesn't seem to be private at all.At least, not in the sense that I am the only one who has the authority of decision-making about my "private' property.

I think we'll have a job to do to figure this all out……but because I privately own my own time, I am the only one who can make the decision to end this lecture now.


The Discussion

[13:21] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: But before you come with remark and questions I have done something to help you by updating the seats
[13:22] herman Bergson: Just press your shift key and then the LEFT arrow ㋡
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof, am sitting and my AO is still on ㋡
[13:22] Rosie Hexicola: ehm
[13:22] herman Bergson: Worked probably only for Rosie ^_^
[13:23] Rosie Hexicola: yeah, lovely
[13:23] herman Bergson: I put in the pose of the Thinker of Rodin in your seat ㋡
[13:23] herman Bergson: Anyway....
[13:24] Rosie Hexicola: it is the thinker pose, but I"m also IN the couch
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:24] herman Bergson: yes..deep thinker pose Rosie
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:25] herman Bergson: Ok...let's concentrate on the issue at hand now
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: it reminds me some business men who are not allowed to pollute the enviroment in their own countries just move the business in a developing country so that they could pollute the environment there and make benefits
[13:25] oola Neruda: yes
[13:25] oola Neruda: excellent point
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: This is exactly what is happening near my farm in Ohio.
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: A man from Holland has built an enormous pig farm -- a factory farm.
[13:26] oola Neruda: oh ick
[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: He would never be permitted to do that in Holland.
[13:26] oola Neruda: those are horrid
[13:26] herman Bergson: Oh my..forbidden in Holland
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: really??
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: OK back to property.
[13:27] herman Bergson: YES....
[13:27] Sartre Placebo: all those evil dutch :)
[13:27] herman Bergson: they tried it here, but every one was against it
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:27] oola Neruda: residents on nearby lands here are against it also
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: We were against it too! But he had MONEY going for him.
[13:27] herman Bergson: So it didnt work..politics were against this horrible development
[13:28] oola Neruda: yes... the MONEY
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: also, as there is no law imposing on minimum wage, the firms set in these countries help them with the cheap labors too...
[13:28] herman Bergson: But the man OWNS the land ...calls it his property
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: but back to PROPERTY.
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: ok.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: So when he does so...what is the complaint?
[13:28] oola Neruda: is it fair to do things that affect other people's property
[13:29] herman Bergson: He is entitled to do as he wishes
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: should not be so but is
[13:29] Sartre Placebo: but it´s facinating how company´s like monsanto try even to gain property on entire pig races with new attributes in their meat
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: how about affirmative actions
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes ..the concept of property is very difficult to get at
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: that interfere, for example, how a landlord let his houses rent
[13:30] herman Bergson: Maybe there doesnt exist property at all...only sets of rules
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: property exists as a construct of those rules
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: but the right to property is never absolute
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Repose..the rules define the property
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a relation of three things
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: for example, that does not allow a firm owner to not recruit ppl from some race, and does not allow a landowner to exclude ppl from some races to rent his house
[13:31] Rosie Hexicola: I don't think there's anyone who doesn't have to obey any rules
[13:31] herman Bergson: The owner, the object and the third party
[13:31] herman Bergson: Indeed Rosie....in fact we seem to be rule driven completely
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:32] Rosie Hexicola: and the rules overrule the "this is mine, I'll do with it what i want" thing
[13:32] herman Bergson: However...the problem isnt that simple
[13:32] herman Bergson: there is a difference in possising a chair and for instance a company
[13:32] herman Bergson: I can say of both itmes they are my property
[13:33] herman Bergson: but that chair..I can do with it what I want...even burn it to ashes
[13:33] herman Bergson: no one will interfer
[13:33] herman Bergson: However, I cant do the same with my company
[13:33] Rosie Hexicola: unless at that point someone else is sitting in it
[13:33] herman Bergson: Will be roasted medium rare Rosie
[13:33] Rosie Hexicola: you'll harm the person sitting in your chair if you do that
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: owner, object, others -- nothing exists in isolation.
[13:34] herman Bergson: ok...I'll ask the person to stand up of course...it is MY chair!
[13:34] Rodney Handrick: what about the expression...possession is 9/10ths of the law
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: myth
[13:35] herman Bergson: What I wanted to say that even when you speak of private property..there is property and property...
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: the pig farmer owns the pigs, but not the air they pollute
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: but not*
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Repose there begins the problem
[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: nor the water under the ground that the pigs pollute.
[13:35] herman Bergson: The air is common property
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: and for ur own land within a community, can you just build anything, or does it need to abide by some community standard
[13:36] Rosie Hexicola: it depends on the community's rules
[13:36] herman Bergson: You have to obey certain building standards Kikik
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: WHICH "community"?
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: so, private property is not absolutely private
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Rosie..the rules are the core of this problem
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: He built the pig factory right OUTSIDE the city limits of the town that opposed him.
[13:37] Rosie Hexicola: in NL you can't just build a shed in your back yard, or add a room to your house... youneed special permission... I think in the US and Canada you have more liberties
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: not really
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: Legal - but not ethical...?
[13:37] herman Bergson: There are even philosophers who claim that private property is an empty term
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: you still need a permit in most places
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: from the town
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: no its the same in the US...in certain neighborhoods
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Hey Rodney! ㋡
[13:38] Rosie Hexicola: ok i was wrong then, lol
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: still.... common property and collective property...i cant distinguish them...it is confusing...
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: One can appeal to 'higher' authorities to get the permits.
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: hey rodney
[13:38] oola Neruda: thinking of pig farms... licences?
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: hi kiki
[13:38] Rosie Hexicola: what if I really like neon yellow and want to paint my house in it.. on the outside?
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lol that has happened
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: If a large corporation wants to take some land. . . it can appeal to high authorities than the town where they want the land.
[13:38] herman Bergson: Common property will say that property is as they call it a RES NULLIUS....a thing belonging to no one
[13:39] oola Neruda: purple...neon purple
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: higher authorities.
[13:39] herman Bergson: or in fact to every one without restriction
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: I think property rights are tempered by the needs of the moral communites we live in
[13:39] Rosie Hexicola: but who's the authority of the authorities?
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Good point, Rosie.
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i could destroy my iPhone and no one would care
[13:39] oola Neruda: that is why we must vote
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: It boils down to one thing...he who has the gold makes the rules
[13:39] herman Bergson: Collective property will say that the resources belong to a group...can be a society, a state
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: collective property belongs to a group?
[13:39] oola Neruda: even in congress
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: i can't destroy my dog, though
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: oh.....thank you
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: even though he is my "property"
[13:40] herman Bergson: and the group decides on the access to the resources
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: 'collective' can also be a corportation?
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: corporation.
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Bruce I think that you can say that
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: Like Wal-Mart.
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...i think i understand it better now...thank you
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in the real sense of cooperation not a company
[13:41] herman Bergson: because the company is owned by an individual
[13:41] Rosie Hexicola: the place you live in has certain rules, federal laws etc., and those overrule the rights of owning a property unless explicitly stated otherwise in the laws about property
[13:41] herman Bergson: Farmers may organize in a cooperation..
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: In the US the corporation is seen as an individual
[13:41] herman Bergson: they can collectively own machines etc
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: That's right, Rod.
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Supreme Court has ruled it so.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well that kills the idea of a cooperation...people cooperating together
[13:42] Rosie Hexicola: so do we or do we not really own?
[13:43] herman Bergson: For now I would say, as far as the rules allow us Rosie
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: The corporation is a collection of like minded people who create an entity
[13:44] herman Bergson: the other issue I mentioned is the focus: the individual or the group
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: to an end
[13:44] herman Bergson: We see Marx already appearing at the horizon
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmmm
[13:45] herman Bergson: And to add to this....
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: ownership is subjective...do we own the food we consume?
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i think some extremist libertarians neglect individuals, sometimes more than the socialists do , because
[13:45] Bruce Mowbray: Where is Adam Smith -- the invisible hand...?
[13:45] herman Bergson: It was Marx who predicted that capitalism would collapse because of its greed
[13:45] herman Bergson: On his way Bruce,,,
[13:46] herman Bergson: and he almost got it right, didnt he?
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol right now yes
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: Second Life seems to rely upon "emergence" for its "rules" regarding property, ethics, and group rules...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well, his system didnt work either
[13:46] Rodney Handrick: greed is still subjective
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: interesting, Bruce
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: because some extremist libertarians think that the smaller the gov, the better....and if the state does not help to protect individuals, other individuals could just deprive him/her of the rights just as easily
[13:47] herman Bergson: You mean they sail as the wind blows Bruce
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The rules come out of the experience of interaction -- not from the top coming down...
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: his system in practice turned out as alienating as he believed capitalism to be ㋡
[13:47] Rodney Handrick: true...someone must win and someone must lose
[13:47] herman Bergson: The problem with the SL strategy is that it looks like opportunism
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: It's actually Darwinian in a sense--- not of POWER and survival of the fitest - but of what WORKS in the SL experience.
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: well, it's a business ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Repose I would say that too
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: How many people would go to a pig factory sim in SL?
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: there is hardly violence in sl unless you are very careless...and sl is more decentralized
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: than some other online games
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: hehehe, Bruce
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: well there are fish and rabbits who knows
[13:49] herman Bergson: True Kiki
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: turtles
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: SL is FAR FAR more civilized than the state I live in.
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: o my goodness
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: physical state, I mean.
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: yes!
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: because they are like minded users here Bruce
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: so sl is a good example on how individuality is achieved
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Rodney...there is a common factor in all of us
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: also a good example of how COMMUNIUTY is achieved.
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: because in rl, when other residents could threat you and nobody protects, then you cant embrace what is claimed to be assigned to you
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, bruce
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: In theory, anyway, SL is entirely consentual...
[13:50] herman Bergson: But ONE major difference!!!
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: community as well as individulism
[13:50] herman Bergson: In fact there is NO FEAR in SL
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: yes. . .
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: newbies often feel fear, I think
[13:51] herman Bergson: No fear of life, no fear of disease ...you can play it but never be tortured
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: but not those who know sl
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: with Repose
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: I'm still noob here.
[13:51] herman Bergson: So this makes SL the wrong example for community building
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: ah but you can get disappointed
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: will this isn't a utopia
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: well
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe violence is a constant inevitable factor in rl, cant be neglected
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes you can Abraxas....the is the posibbility of emotional damage
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: yes, violence to the environment, too.
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yet, firendship is more available in sl than rl, i think
[13:52] herman Bergson: But it isnt life threatening
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: communities are built here
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: agreed, Repose.
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: violence comes from ignorance
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: agreed repose
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: or lose jobs
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: peace is achieve by violent deterrent, law, legislations, and morals make ppl abide by it otherwise, there is fear that they get jailed
[13:53] herman Bergson: And property in SL is NOT based on emerging rules
[13:53] herman Bergson: the simple laws of Copyright are applied here
[13:53] herman Bergson: So that defines our possesions in SL
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: the two comments as in a switched order
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: even most religions are violent, except for buddhism
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: true...however, the making of money has not entered the equation
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: so in rl violence is non neglectable
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: oh, but tell that to the Tamil Tigers ㋡
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:55] herman Bergson: So I think that a comparision between SL and RL is a bit off the mark
[13:55] herman Bergson: Doesnt make much sense
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: I agree
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: were it not for violent deterrent, maybe countries are in wars already now
[13:55] herman Bergson: That is a Hobbesian approach Kiki
[13:55] Bruce Mowbray: anthropological studies have been done of SL that would tend to differ... no offense.
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: like Thomas Malabry's book
[13:56] herman Bergson: Sure Bruce...
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: sorry...
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: that is about econimic ties, and nuclear arms...
[13:56] herman Bergson: No plz...We love good input..
[[13:57] herman Bergson: Interesting to read about Thomas Malabry
[13:57] Bruce Mowbray: one of the major theses of MAKING VIRTUAL WORLDS (by Malabry) is that there is an emergent system of ethics in operation.
[13:57] herman Bergson: I'll have a look at that certainly
[13:57] Rodney Handrick: what's the name of the book?
[13:57] Bruce Mowbray: It's a brilliant study, really.
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: have to see that
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes interesting....
[13:58] herman Bergson: Because the ethics....that are WE...the RL moral beings
[13:58] Bruce Mowbray: MAKING VIRTUAL WORLDS- Linden Labs and Second Life -- by Thomas Malaby (2009)
[13:58] herman Bergson: Thxn Bruce!
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: thanks Bruce
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you
[13:59] herman Bergson: However...all bad things from RL all missing here
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: mostly
[13:59] Bruce Mowbray: I am about 2/3 through with it -- and it has really opened my eyes to a lot of the SL experience.
[13:59] herman Bergson: I can be run over by truck...fall from a height of 2000m
[13:59] herman Bergson: no scratch at all
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:59] herman Bergson: That makes a big difference
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: here you can loose your connection
[14:00] Bruce Mowbray: or crash...
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: an accident
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: and i could visit philosophy lectures here ;-)
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: we'll ultimately break the bounds of the business model that currently obtains here ㋡
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[14:00] Josiane Llewellyn: You can lose money you have invested here in inventory.
[14:00] herman Bergson: I even can stop this world from being for me by pulling my plug forever
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: the deeper logic of this place is very different
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: exactly Josiane
[14:01] Rosie Hexicola: but we tend to want to re-create real life here... heard about those sims where your avatar can die?
[14:01] Bruce Mowbray: But in SL, there are also the three types of PROPERTY, no?
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...this is not our subject of today but damn interesting from a philophical point of view
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: yes, it is ㋡
[14:01] Bruce Mowbray: THIS is a commonly owned piece of property -- or is it?
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: to die means to be returned to your homelocation
[14:01] herman Bergson: At least a fun subject...
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: it is owned by Linden Labs, really
[14:02] Kiki Walpanheim: intriged to read on economics from now on ;-)
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: we are here on sufferance
[14:02] herman Bergson: We are all property of Linden Lab
[14:02] Bruce Mowbray: This lecture is "community" property -- once it is delivered, no?
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes
[14:02] herman Bergson: It is even common property by posting it in the blog Bruce
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: true, we are in their domain
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes, we own our ideas here, nothing else that i can see
[14:03] Bruce Mowbray: Yes, that is my point. The 3 types of property seem to be alive and well in SL.
[14:03] herman Bergson: Oh yes,,, I'll consider that in my next lecture Bruce...
[14:03] Kiki Walpanheim: communism is about ...no private property...
[14:03] herman Bergson: How property rules apply in SL compared to RL
[14:03] Bruce Mowbray: [[[ hold on to your iPad, Professor....]]]
[14:04] herman Bergson: Well I think we have got plenty of new ideas to think about...
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[14:04] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:04] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[14:04] herman Bergson: So may I thank you for your great discussion and participation
[14:04] Bruce Mowbray: mmmm. . . interesting discussion today.
[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[14:04] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[[14:04] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[14:04] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[14:04] Bruce Mowbray: THANKS to ALL.
[14:04] Abraxas Nagy: thank you herman
[14:04] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all
[14:05] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i think!!!
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: congrats Herman with the 250
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: congrats with the Herman 250
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: and thanks for today
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: thanks and dry today
[14:05] Zinzi Serevi: see you all
[14:05] Bruce Mowbray: YAYYYY for the 250!!!
[14:05] Zinzi's translator: see you all
[14:05] Kiki Walpanheim: congrats with anniversary
[14:05] Gemma Cleanslate: well be traveling but will have wi fi i hope!
[14:05] Rosie Hexicola: thank you Herman and congrats!
[14:05] herman Bergson: Thank you all ^_^
[14:05] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you professor :)
[[14:06] Kiki Walpanheim: see you all on thursday hopefully
[14:06] herman Bergson: Hope so too Kiki!
[14:07] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-)
[14:08] herman Bergson whispers: Well Doc..did you like it?
[14:08] herman Bergson: Hello Eleanor
[14:08] Eleanor Spiritor: no i
[14:08] Eleanor Spiritor: hi herman sorry i was so late
[14:08] dzjengis Parx: well my english is not that good
[14:08] dzjengis Parx: but i understood the most of it
[14:09] herman Bergson: Well just the fun of attending the class Doc ㋡
[14:09] herman Bergson: Doc is an old friend of mine
[14:09] dzjengis Parx: its a nice way to discuss
[14:09] Eleanor Spiritor: herman, i'd be interested in joining your group
[[14:10] herman Bergson: That can be arranged eleanor..just a sec
[14:10] dzjengis Parx: i have to go off thx herman
[14:10] dzjengis Parx: bye all
[14:10] Rodney Handrick: see you all later
[14:10] herman Bergson: Bye Doc...nice you could come ^_^
[14:11] Eleanor Spiritor: ty herman
[14:11] herman Bergson: You are welcome
[14:11] herman Bergson: Classes are on Tuesday and Thursday

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, April 30, 2010

249: Rousseau (1712 - 1778)

Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712 - 1178) is probably the best know philosopher among the 'Social Contract" philosophers. Even his typical way of thinking is still popular.

The Academy of Dijon posed the question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” And Rousseau said : NO! in 1750.

And still we see the ambivalence around us. One group who is optimistic and believes that science will solve any problem and the other group who claims that all this science and technology alienates us from our true self.

It is remarkable that more than 250 years ago there were people who had the same ideas. Or should I say that we now experience the influence of Rousseau's philosophy here.

Like the sciences in those days analyzed physical reality in its smallest parts and laws of nature, in the same way philosophers tried to apply this methodology to political philosophy.

So we got the "state of nature" theories of man as formulated by Hobbes and Locke and now Rousseau too.

Hobbes contends that human beings are motivated purely by self-interest, and that the state of nature, which is the state of human beings without civil society, is the war of every person against every other.

Locke’s account of the state of nature is different in that it is an intellectual exercise to illustrate people’s obligations to one another. These obligations are articulated in terms of natural rights, including rights to life, liberty and property.

Rousseau’s picture of “man in his natural state,” is radically different. Rousseau describes natural man as isolated, timid, peaceful, mute, and without the foresight to worry about what the future will bring.

Rousseau acknowledges, that self-preservation is one principle of motivation for human actions. But there is a second principle: “an innate repugnance to see his fellow suffer.”, pity.

Human beings in the state of nature are amoral creatures, neither virtuous nor vicious, but naturally good. according to Rousseau. After humans leave the state of nature, they can enjoy a higher form of goodness, moral goodness, which Rousseau articulates most explicitly in the Social Contract.

Rousseau's philosophy is based on the idea that by nature, humans are essentially peaceful, content, and equal. It is the socialization process that has produced inequality, competition, and the egoistic mentality. But the social contract is the inevitable consequence of historical development.

While Hobbes and Locke had some utilitarian like ideas about a society based on a social contract, Rousseau chooses a completely different approach by introducing the concept of the "general will".

One can understand the general will in terms of an analogy. A political society is like a human body. A body is a unified entity though it has various parts that have particular functions.

And just as the body has a will that looks after the well-being of the whole, a political state also has a will which looks to its general well-being.

The major conflict in political philosophy occurs when the general will is at odds with one or more of the individual wills of its citizens.

Rousseau argues that there is an important distinction to be made between the general will and the collection of individual wills: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will.

The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the general will.”

And here I am lost with Rousseau. I have no idea where he has found this general will, nor do I know what generates its existence. We know the term "the common good", but now we have to follow "the general will"

An unpleasant political idea in my opinion. Who can claim to know what this general will wants. And if someone does, are we obliged to follow him? Not me…


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: so much on Rousseau
[13:18] herman Bergson: He started a debate that still rages on
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: that reminds me of the problem we had last week with the obligation to follow the majority
[13:18] Qwark Allen: indeed
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: aa yes like whats going on in Thailand for ex now
[13:19] herman Bergson: Well...the majority is not an abstraction....
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: who have right the yellows or red
[13:19] oola Neruda: i am bothered by the manipulation of facts and use of propaganda to influence general will
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: no but was still causing the same problem for the minority
[13:19] herman Bergson: These is a difference Bejita...
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: sorry i am late...network was bad
[13:20] herman Bergson: In Thailand the rulers are tyrannies in the classic sense...not selected by democratic vote
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:20] herman Bergson: all Social Contract theorists agree on the right to overthrow despotism
[13:21] herman Bergson: and as I said...contrary to this General Will of rousseau.the majority is a realthing
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: hmm true that but general in politics do they think of the people or only themselves and is the later the so called general will
[13:21] herman Bergson: and it is a social agreement that we accept the vote of the majority
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: true
[13:22] herman Bergson: that is an ever lasting problem with representation….do they represent us...
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: or themselves
[13:22] herman Bergson: The greek let all the citizens vote..but that was just a small group
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: the general will look like if it is a survey s proportion of those who are forcing leaderships, as in an oligarchy
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont understand why civilization is a degradation of morals
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: look around you
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes...good question Kiki....
[13:24] oola Neruda: a lot depends upon the leader... in some places education is lacking and even denied, in other places it is required
[13:24] herman Bergson: it is what not exactly what Rousseau thought....but that is a matter of debate
[13:25] oola Neruda: who decides what is best for the whole
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: the majority
[13:25] herman Bergson: The question is why did they think it made sense to analyze human existence to arrive at some "natural state"?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well oola...no one decides what is best....
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: could they analyze from a natural state.. of were they studying humans in a society already?
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is a plethora of interests and a number of people who are selected to tip the balance one way or the other
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: humans
[13:27] herman Bergson: this natural state is in fact a theoretical construct
[13:27] oola Neruda: but those people need to be honest and wise
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its seems so
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: the main problem is we all THINK
[13:27] herman Bergson: maybe related to the idea of us coming from paradise
[13:29] herman Bergson: What these COntract Theorists made clear at least was that the authority of a state was not derived form God or the like but created by man himself
[13:29] herman Bergson: That was their big contribution to our independence
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: ah the previous state before the society ,what it is related to the religion that was at the time?
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: also...if society is unnatural..then why social contract...
[13:30] herman Bergson: christian faith still plaid an important role..
[13:30] herman Bergson: It was the metaphysical background of the philosophers of those days
[13:31] herman Bergson: but what they question is the authority of this religion in relation to the empirical reality
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: and yes this general will confuses me too
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: well ,i my sense, if many persons dont what to follow the general will, they could make a social contract among themselves, and be into another groups.. , this is how i saw his social contract, but i find relate it to the general will, before today
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: i think rousseau also mentioned that the social contract cant be applied to a too large society
[13:32] herman Bergson: this GEneral will idea is a questionable issue in Rousseau's philosophy for me
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: nods to herman, the same with me
[13:32] herman Bergson: The English like Hobbes an Locke talked about the Common good....
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: so far i like Montesquieu better
[13:33] herman Bergson: in that they meant real security and welfare for the people..
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: the general will might not be, a leadership, but the will, in general?
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: if ppl in this contract are all by free will, then i can understand...not sure...
[13:33] herman Bergson: YEs Alaya, but what wiill...and who knows what this General will wants...
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: which mean, ppl could choose to live without or within this contract, rather than coercively
[13:34] herman Bergson: It is a kind of a God idea
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: hihi, that is the question
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: but than comes the social contract
[13:34] herman Bergson: well...I dont think you should take the idea of a contract too literal
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: also i dont understand why a progressive society is no good.....
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: oh
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: as in agreement
[13:35] herman Bergson: There never was signed a contract in history...
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:35] herman Bergson: Even this contract idea is a theoretical construct to explain reality
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:36] herman Bergson: I think one of the main drives was the believe in the human being himself,,,independent of any authority ...means religion
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: rousseau also mentioned that children better be educated by nature rather than books...while i cherish reading books....
[13:36] herman Bergson: that is what I meant in the beginning...
[13:37] herman Bergson: these days you still find people who believe in knowledge an science as a solution...
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: i dotn see it as a signed paper, but a social, will, something they agree upon , like having basic needs, a a commons understanding, , some cooperative inclination
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: network was bad...missed the beginning;( but would check the blog later ;)
[13:37] herman Bergson: while others believe in 'nature'
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: we would have a new set of savages every few years
[13:37] herman Bergson: nature
[13:38] herman Bergson: YEs Alaya..you are right..and in that sense you are closer to Hobbes and Locke than to Rousseau
[13:39] herman Bergson: But this general will idea will play an important role later
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: tho nature is good, and ppl do have a side that they like to share....which i agree
[13:39] herman Bergson: Typical continental metaphysics
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: still, maybe part of nature is that we are gifted the ability to use tech. be cultivated
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: and ppl are selfish as well...tho ppl like to share
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim tries to understand him rather than let my prejudice take over me
[13:41] herman Bergson: ]A natural state is a myth in my opinion...we never have been in such a state..not is it a desirable state
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:42] herman Bergson: Important is to see how normative Rousseau's philosophy is...he is rather a moralist telling us how it should be
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: also he described the nice pic of primitives when there was no ownership...
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:43] herman Bergson: We'll see more of the influence of his ideas
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe could read him as to see how to be good and moral
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: like,,...kant?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Virtue was his highest goal....and education to virtuous life
[13:44] herman Bergson: which means....close to (our) nature
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, being virtuous and close to nature...but in my opinion, to neglect the facts that ppl are not like that, is
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: might not be quite realistic...i dunno
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Rousseau had some weird ideas...
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: tho trying to be virtuous ourselves is good
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: rousseau was very conservative and a tendency to , moralize yes
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: would never work in this society for sure anywhere
[13:45] herman Bergson: for instance that science was the result of pride and vanity....
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: if everybody has evolved to angels, then an ideal society would achieve....maybe..
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hmm maybe then
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..I think our present perspective is way different....
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: some scientist are saing that for pride and vanity , , i can see that, but not all
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: using
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are one step further than `ROusseau....we accept that we ar eevolved animals
[13:46] herman Bergson: and we reason from there
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: when not everybody is as virtuous as that, maybe taking advantage of ppl's self interst works better...
[13:47] herman Bergson: with the focus on the 'animal' features
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:47] herman Bergson: Hobbes , Locke and rousseau accepted the fact that we are social beings
[13:48] herman Bergson: we accept the fact that we are biological organisms with social behavior
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: does he refer to the animal, as the body part, or more as the mind being gregarious,what were animals for him?
[13:48] herman Bergson: we interpret our situation from another scientific perspective than those men could
[13:49] herman Bergson: For Rousseau we were close to animals, but the big difference is our free will, which no animal posseses
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: rousseau thinks that renaissance made ppl lost the ancient virtues.....also
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: do ppl really have free will?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well he is a classic Virtue moralist
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: good question
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:51] Qwark Allen: do animals don`t have free will?
[13:51] herman Bergson: that is a whole new chapter Kiki
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-) yes.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: animals act on instinct
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: they probably have but follow instinct more i think
[13:51] Blackwell Huet: My favorite subject.
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: the holographic universe
[13:51] Qwark Allen: i think they have
[13:51] Qwark Allen: some
[13:51] Qwark Allen: we tend to be egocentric on that
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe focus on rousseau this time ;-)
[13:52] Blackwell Huet: Animals have soul, but people have the ability to develop spirit.
[13:52] herman Bergson: What is your favorite subject Blackwell?
[13:52] herman Bergson: ~free wil?
[13:52] Blackwell Huet: Yes, sir.
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: will to deviate from nature organisations, as far as i can see, we can eat and poison ourself for the sake of the pleasure of any type, interests of any projection of satisfactions, putting ourself in trouble? is it an advantage?
[13:52] Qwark Allen: spirit can be as subjective as the animals don`t have free will
[13:53] herman Bergson: it is a fact Ayala
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: my favorite is ethics and politics, not limited to that tho , anything on philosophy is interesting to me
[13:53] Alaya Kumaki: it might be usefull for something, more, than just loose track
[13:53] Alaya Kumaki: it might be a propultion motor, motive
[13:53] herman Bergson: I dont know Ayala... ㋡
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: its needed, in trouble as for a fireman to save life , for example
[13:54] herman Bergson: Well…. Rousseau is a bit of a question mark to me .....not sure what to do with him
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: tha tis the strong social cohesive glue , i guess
[13:55] Blackwell Huet: The strongest social cohesive glue is FEAR.
[13:55] herman Bergson: Next class will be our 250th Lecture...
[13:55] Qwark Allen: omg
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: that is great
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: who is the guest next time
[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to celebrate it
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: nice
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes , 250 that is wonderful
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: anniversary
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well.. I am thinking..after all these liberals that Property could be our guest
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: goodness
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...good
[13:56] herman Bergson: Before we continue into the 19th century...
[13:56] herman Bergson: we could dig into the concept of property....
[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: fear and free will?mmm i was relating it, to will that make us have a strong decisional social behavior, cutting into the self i centrifuge satisfaction
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: ty professor it was wonderful....always enjoy the lectures here!
[13:57] herman Bergson: For we are heading for a world of poor and rich....class struggle....
[13:57] herman Bergson: thank you kiki
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes thats true
[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: indeed and maybe more fascist too
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: yes we are
[13:57] herman Bergson: Property is a fascinating subject I can tell you...
[13:57] Blackwell Huet: I wholly agree.
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, surely is
[13:57] herman Bergson: it is at the root of our political system
[13:58] Blackwell Huet: Agreed.
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: or at least rightwing is coming up
[13:58] Blackwell Huet: It is at the root of our system of laws.
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: in Holland that is
[13:58] herman Bergson: Well property isnt right or left..how to distribute and share it is the debate for the future

[Hope63 Shephard was one the 'students' in the Philosophy Class since day one. On March 8, 2009, so after about two years of participation, he disappeared from Second Life. We tried to contact him without much effect. He was highly appreciated for his contributions in our discussions.
However, recently we got reports that he was spotted here and there. I also saw him for a split second. And today he appeared in class again, so you can imagine the reception he got….㋡]

[13:58] herman Bergson: HOPE!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: HOPE!!!!!
[13:59] herman Bergson whispers: WELCOME
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:59] Qwark Allen: Hey! HOPPPPEEEEE
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: good heavens!!
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hiii hope :-)
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ah but how to distribute it IS politcs
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hi Hope
[13:59] Alaya Kumaki giggles
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: I am glad to see you are alive
[13:59] Blackwell Huet: Popular guy!
[13:59] herman Bergson: For those who dont know..meet Hope
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:59] herman Bergson: ♫♪♫♪ ♪♫♪♫ APPLAUSE ♪♫♪♫ ♫♪♫♪
[13:59] oola Neruda: HOPE!!!
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: hello Hope
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: hello Hope
[13:59] hope63 Shepherd: relax.. lol.. how can you be sure its me..:)
[13:59] oola Neruda: welcome back!!!
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: just not seen in almost a year
[13:59] herman Bergson: One of our most loyal students and oldtimer
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: very old lol
[14:00] Qwark Allen: OMG THAT IS you! just cause of that
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa ok
[14:00] Qwark Allen: l ☺ ☻ ☺ l
[14:00] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: ah i see
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. oldtimer might be the right word..lol
[14:00] herman Bergson: but still on a slow laptop...lol
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: older than me in class
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ╔╗╔═╦╗
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ║╚╣║║╚╗
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ╚═╩═╩═╝
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: please continue professor..:)
[14:00] Zinzi Serevi: he is just in time for the 250
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: wow
[14:00] herman Bergson: Class is dismissed Hope
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: i see two characters on hope's shirt....smiles
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: herman
[14:00] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[14:01] Qwark Allen: you got here one hour later HOPE
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: it was a pleasure again
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: hope we see you thursday Hope
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman
[14:01] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[14:01] Qwark Allen: YES
[14:01] herman Bergson: Hope..Thursday 22:00 European time..Lecture 250
[14:01] hope63 Shepherd: EASY EASY.. JUST MANAGED TO RELOGG INTO SL..LOL
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: bye all of you
[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: it was interesting!! thanks herman: -) thanks class!
[14:01] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[14:01] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: anything happening Q?
[14:02] Qwark Allen: I`M at europe ---> and it`s at 21 here
[14:02] Qwark Allen: l ☺ ☻ ☺ l
[14:02] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:02] Qwark Allen: no
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: no?
[14:02] herman Bergson: that is UK Qwark
[14:02] Qwark Allen: today going to bed soon
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[14:02] Qwark Allen: gemma going to rl work
[14:02] Qwark Allen: @_@
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok m8 have A good rest
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ok
[14:02] Qwark Allen: tomorow we`ll make a partyy
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: w0oh0o!
[14:02] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see you thursday :-)
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ah
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ok
[14:03] Qwark Allen: byesee you tomorow
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: c ya bergFrau
[14:03] Qwark Allen: .-)))
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu then Q
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: :)
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye abra:-)
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu all
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]