🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 12 Oct George Dance <georgedance@my-deja.com> wrote:

snip

> "Chris Moore" <theubermensch@home.com> wrote:
>> By this logic you can also say that what actually happened in Russia
>> came from Marx,
>
>Several authors have argued that Soviet Communism was a consistent
>application of (some) parts of Marxism.  So I don't accept your reductio
>ad absurdum argument, as you have not shown an absurdum.

	several authros argue that there are aliens abducting people...
	The key is evidence and it is not there. In the case of the USSR
and Marx's we have his own wordsthat he did not think the USSR would every
be a communist state, as the Russia of his time was too backwards. As well
can we have any grounds to show that there is a connection in the writings
of Marxs and the system of government in the USSR? Rhetoric aside, there
is none. However if you wish to pursue this claim, please read the
Communist Manifesto and list his demands. The show how communistic they
are today... really bad things he wanted, a 10 hour work day!! Oh no the
world is coming to an end. Fair wages for fair work... The sun, is down
the sun is done... I could on and make even more fun of this connection
but i would rather let the effort be to prove it.

snip

>What would you consider sufficient proof or disproof of the claim?

	Fair question. What is proof. this is a philosophy NG. If you want
a political NG there are others who woulkd askIMMANUEL KANT
An Answer to the Question: 
What is Enlightenment? (1784)
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed
immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without
guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies
not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it
without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage
to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. 

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men,
long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter
maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it
is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so
easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a
pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me,
and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can
pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians
who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully
seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair
sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention
difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having
carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single
step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then
show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk
alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few
times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of
this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further
attempts. 

Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the
imaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of
this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own
understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and
formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of 
his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever
threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest
ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free
movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their
own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure
course. 

But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it 
is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even
among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always
think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the
yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for 
both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for
himself. But it should be particularly noted that if a public that was
first placed in this yoke by the guardians is suitably aroused by some of 
those who are altogether incapable of enlightenment, it may force the
guardians themselves to remain under the yoke--so pernicious is it to
instill prejudices, for they finally take revenge upon their originators, 
or on their descendants. Thus a public can only attain enlightenment
slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and
profiteering or power-grabbng oppression, but it can never truly reform
a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones
they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass. 

Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and 
the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom 
to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not
argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do
not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one
ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you
want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on
freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, 
but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's
reason must always be free,ves be immature is an absurdity that would
insure the perpetuation of absurdities. 

But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church assembly or venerable
presbytery (as those among the Dutch call themselves), not be justified
in binding itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in order to
secure a constant guardianship over each of its members and through them 
over the people, and this for all time: I say that this is wholly
impossible. Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude forever all
further enlightenment of the human race, is absolutely null and void,
even if it should be ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and
by the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind itself, and thus
conspires into a position to be able without external guidance to apply
understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear
indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely
in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to
their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually
diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the
century of Frederick. 

A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be
his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom
in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of
tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a
grateful present and by posterity as the firslly even influences the
principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating
men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity. 

I. Kant 
Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784 
im

		Just Thought I Should Mention It