The Four Institutions

[Duty]

The sciences/philosophy sector should have the most power...

Philosophers are supposed to temper the sciences by giving them the proper methods, ethics, etc to conduct their practices. The aim of philosophy is truth and the proper method for obtaining it.

The sciences show us how the world actually works. Their aim is truth and knowledge about the mechanics of the world: society, physical laws, individuals, etc and then putting that knowledge into practical purpose for humans to beneficially use.



The state, religion, and market have distorted values that are not in the best interest of people.

The state's main concern is its own preservation and the submission of those under its authority.

Religion's main concern is the submission of those under its authority to rules and beliefs that have no basis in reality or interest in how the world actually works. Because these rules have little interest in how the world actually works, they typically are not to the benefit of mankind.

The market's main concern is profit. Very simple here.

The concern of the sciences is knowledge and application of that knowledge to make human life better in some capacity. This is the only institution with the interest in making people's lives better.

 

[Satya]

None of them. They are your postulations, not mine. To me you could just have well asked me if I like ford trucks more than the stock market. You create concepts in your mind and then want to get me or whomever to discuss them, but they are your concepts, and they are only concepts that you create, and that is all they are. Convince me what value I could find in buying into your own self created concepts and discussing them?

As I said, these are observable sociological phenomenon that I have defined for the purpose of this thread. They are not just made up concepts. And I don't have to convince you of anything. I simply asked anyone who wanted to participate in this thread to answer which of these institutions as I defined them, they would like see have the most political power. Obviously you don't want to participate, and frankly you really haven't contributed much to the discussion anyways. And just as you asked people in your thread to stay out if they don't want to seriously contribute, I ask you the same.

 

[mayflow]

The sciences/philosophy sector should have the most power...

Philosophers are supposed to temper the sciences by giving them the proper methods, ethics, etc to conduct their practices. The aim of philosophy is truth and the proper method for obtaining it.

The sciences show us how the world actually works. Their aim is truth and knowledge about the mechanics of the world: society, physical laws, individuals, etc and then putting that knowledge into practical purpose for humans to beneficially use.



The state, religion, and market have distorted values that are not in the best interest of people.

The state's main concern is its own preservation and the submission of those under its authority.

Religion's main concern is the submission of those under its authority to rules and beliefs that have no basis in reality or interest in how the world actually works. Because these rules have little interest in how the world actually works, they typically are not to the benefit of mankind.

The market's main concern is profit. Very simple here.

The concern of the sciences is knowledge and application of that knowledge to make human life better in some capacity. This is the only institution with the interest in making people's lives better.

Would you like to tell me how Buddhism or Hinduism has a main concern for putting people under it's authorities or rules, or how science creating atomic weapons and such is the only thing trying to make people's lives better? I may seem some faults in this logic., Also, I doubt that the free market system is as dead as Just me implied. Freedom does not easily die.

 

[Satya]

Religion may have once gotten results, but it's too dependent on fixed doctrine. Science gets results, but has no morality. Doctrine without adaptability provides power, as does adaptability without morality. I think there should be a way of combining the two.

A big problem is that Science is often seen almost religiously, even though it lacks morality.

Interesting perspective. You wish to combine science with morality but you don't want science to be treated as a doctrine?

 

[mayflow]

As I said, these are observable sociological phenomenon that I have defined for the purpose of this thread. They are not just made up concepts. And I don't have to convince you of anything. I simply asked anyone who wanted to participate in this thread to answer which of these institutions as I defined them, they would like see have the most political power. Obviously you don't want to participate, and frankly you really haven't contributed much to the discussion anyways. And just as you asked people in your thread to stay out if they don't want to seriously contribute, I ask you the same.

Not a prob. I leave this thread now.

 

[Quinlan]

Religion may have once gotten results, but it's too dependent on fixed doctrine. Science gets results, but has no morality. Doctrine without adaptability provides power, as does adaptability without morality. I think there should be a way of combining the two.

A big problem is that Science is often seen almost religiously, even though it lacks morality.

Neither science or religion have an objective source of morality (although you could say biological morality is more objective but i am probably biased), in this sense all of the institutions are morally equal, however a properly run state will most closely match the morality of the majority of it's citizens.

 

[Satya]

Does voting have anything to do with this?

The sciences, the church, and the market don't really lend themselves to democracy too well. Voting would mostly be a part of the state.

I can only perceive the system we have.

If you are an intuitive then you should be able to see alternative possibilities to the system we have.

Set up something different than political parties to choose from; something different than voting.

You wish for a state without voting?

The State is intervening into the Market so much right now the State is telling people in the Market what to do to a certain point. The Market was flawed and is on its way out. The State has the control on almost everything.

How was the market flawed?

Do I think there could be a better way? Yes.

It still doesn't answer my hypothetical question. Of the four institutions, which do you think should have the most political power?

 

[Duty]

Would you like to tell me how Buddhism or Hinduism has a main concern for putting people under it's authorities or rules

I'll grant you this one. I was only thinking from a Western history of religion. Still, these religions produce nothing of value that can't better and more thoroughly be done by the sciences.

or how science creating atomic weapons and such is the only thing trying to make people's lives better?

Do you know the story behind the making of the atomic bomb? It came with the making of the nuclear reactor, which is a fantastic invention, and the inventor of the key component (the chain reaction) almost committed suicide. He also turned to biology and away from physics. The plan for the bomb was only submitted completely out of fear of Hitler (a product of the state).

Plus, science is only a tool. How people use the knowledge that science produces is a product of their own stupidity. Remember, its the STATE that dropped the bomb. Science didn't drop it. It's the stupidity of the other institutions that screws it up for everyone.

The other institutions are not tools of knowledge or progression. States produce nothing but laws and wars. Religion produces nothing positive toward society. The market produces something, but its underlying method is monetary based, which flaws it horribly.

Science on the other hand produces knowledge. That's it. It's the stupidity of the other institutions that screw it up.

 

[Duty]

Neither science or religion have an objective source of morality (although you could say biological morality is more objective but i am probably biased), in this sense all of the institutions are morally equal, however a properly run state will most closely match the morality of the majority of it's citizens.

Science derives its methods from philosophy, which is wholly concerned with ethics. The two must go hand in hand.

 

[Satya]

The sciences/philosophy sector should have the most power...

Philosophers are supposed to temper the sciences by giving them the proper methods, ethics, etc to conduct their practices. The aim of philosophy is truth and the proper method for obtaining it.

The sciences show us how the world actually works. Their aim is truth and knowledge about the mechanics of the world: society, physical laws, individuals, etc and then putting that knowledge into practical purpose for humans to beneficially use.

The state, religion, and market have distorted values that are not in the best interest of people.

The state's main concern is its own preservation and the submission of those under its authority.

Religion's main concern is the submission of those under its authority to rules and beliefs that have no basis in reality or interest in how the world actually works. Because these rules have little interest in how the world actually works, they typically are not to the benefit of mankind.

The market's main concern is profit. Very simple here.

The concern of the sciences is knowledge and application of that knowledge to make human life better in some capacity. This is the only institution with the interest in making people's lives better.

Fascinating perspective. So you believe in science tempered by philosophy much in the same way it appears that Xel'Karin believes in science being combined with morality.

So would your philosophers be those who derive morals from what is observable in the real world? And would the morals derived by the philosophers be instilled in a doctrine similar to that of the church or would they be adaptable?

 

[Duty]

So would your philosophers be those who derive morals from what is observable in the real world? And would the morals derived by the philosophers be instilled in a doctrine similar to that of the church or would they be adaptable?

See, these are all questions FOR philosophy.

However, I could see doctrines in philosophy being very adaptable to a point. Philosophy can't deny the facts about the world. It can't just pretend socioeconomic stratification doesn't currently exist, for example. Some things about the world are just objectively true, and those that try to deny them (religion because it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs, the state because it would make the relevant politicians look bad/lose power, and the market because fewer people would invest in their products) are worthy of no power. The VERY AIM of philosophy and science is truth, and so those that don't pursue these things are not engaged in philosophy or science.


Technology and social "integrity" are the current problems of society, especially the latter. Society right now is greedy, and completely missing the concept of principled love toward the rest of humanity. Religion has long had a chance to fix this problem. It has completely failed. In fact, it has produces nothing but more separation and stratification, as well as just plain incorrect beliefs about the world.

Both of these problems are solvable through scientific knowledge. WHY are people so uncaring toward one another? Why are people so greedy? How do we fix it? These are problems for sociology. How do we feed everyone? How do we get renewable energy sources that are clean and efficient? These are problems for biology and physics, respectively. The sciences are the solution to society.

 

[Zero Angel]

If sciences and philosophy tend towards advancement then this if anything should hold power -- science without ethics and ethics without knowledge are both things which are bound to fail.


The very foundation of science and philosophy rest on the openness and free exchange of information.

Science has a few principles and thus can be considered a doctrine, however in comparison to religion which is a fixed doctrine, the scientific method allows the doctrine to be adapted as new information comes in. It is the same thing with philosophy.

We have seen what happens when religious institutions are allowed to hold the reins of power -- such ideals become corrupted by mens own lust for power derived from mans own fears (of scarcity, of evil, of being wrong) and thus we have war, omens, and ignorance. When the economic system is allowed to hold power we have economic stratification (where 10 percent of the people hold 80% of the national wealth).

 

[Satya]

See, these are all questions FOR philosophy.

However, I could see doctrines in philosophy being very adaptable to a point. Philosophy can't deny the facts about the world. It can't just pretend socioeconomic stratification doesn't currently exist, for example. Some things about the world are just objectively true, and those that try to deny them (religion because it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs, the state because it would make the relevant politicians look bad/lose power, and the market because fewer people would invest in their products) are worthy of no power. The VERY AIM of philosophy and science is truth, and so those that don't pursue these things are not engaged in philosophy or science.


Technology and social "integrity" are the current problems of society, especially the latter. Society right now is greedy, and completely missing the concept of principled love toward the rest of humanity. Religion has long had a chance to fix this problem. It has completely failed. In fact, it has produces nothing but more separation and stratification, as well as just plain incorrect beliefs about the world.

Both of these problems are solvable through scientific knowledge. WHY are people so uncaring toward one another? Why are people so greedy? How do we fix it? These are problems for sociology. How do we feed everyone? How do we get renewable energy sources that are clean and efficient? These are problems for biology and physics, respectively. The sciences are the solution to society.

So if you were to follow through with Quinlan's method, what percentage would you give each of the 4 institutions? Does the state, the church, and the market deserve no political power or do they deserve a certain amount respective to the sciences tempered by philosophy?

 

[Satya]

If sciences and philosophy tend towards advancement then this if anything should hold power -- science without ethics and ethics without knowledge are both things which are bound to fail.


The very foundation of science and philosophy rest on the openness and free exchange of information.

Science has a few principles and thus can be considered a doctrine, however in comparison to religion which is a fixed doctrine, the scientific method allows the doctrine to be adapted as new information comes in. It is the same thing with philosophy.

We have seen what happens when religious institutions are allowed to hold the reins of power -- such ideals become corrupted by mens own lust for power derived from mans own fears (of scarcity, of evil, of being wrong) and thus we have war, omens, and ignorance. When the economic system is allowed to hold power we have economic stratification (where 10 percent of the people hold 80% of the national wealth).

Very interesting perspective as well. As I asked Duty above, if you were to follow through with Quinlan's method, what percentage would you give each of the 4 institutions? Does the state, the church, and the market deserve no political power or do they deserve a certain amount respective to the sciences tempered by philosophy?

 

[TenorKite]

Neither science or religion have an objective source of morality (although you could say biological morality is more objective but i am probably biased), in this sense all of the institutions are morally equal, however a properly run state will most closely match the morality of the majority of it's citizens.

This is why I consider myself an animist. You have to think your decisions over very carefully when you try to empathize with absolutely everything.

 

[Duty]

So if you were to follow through with Quinlan's method, what percentage would you give each of the 4 institutions? Does the state, the church, and the market deserve no political power or do they deserve a certain amount respective to the sciences tempered by philosophy?

Church: 0%

State: Hard to say, ideally wouldn't be required beyond pure administrative tasks, following a formula determined through science/philosophy...so 5% or so.

Market: Same as the state. People that deal with money are worthless- bankers, stock brokers, etc, produce nothing of benefit to society. The most the market should do is be an administrative sector to proper resource management...and only executing a pre-arranged formula that is determined by science/philosophy.

Science/Philosophy: 90%. These people are the actual problem solvers. The problem is sociology right now. It's the most underdeveloped and currently ineffective of the sciences. Resources need to be poured into it...our problem is the lack of knowledge of how to make society better.

 

[jn56uytrx]

The way I see it, within just about any society there exists four institutions which fight for the political power. These are the church, the state, the market, and the sciences.

The church is the religious organizations within the society. They are the moral authority within the society. They can span from a shaman in a primitive tribe to a giant bureaucracy like the Roman Catholic Church of modern society. The church views individuals in terms of virtue and sin.

The state is the legal authority within the society. They can span from a chief in a primitive tribe to a Constitutional Republic of modern society. The state views individuals in terms of being just or criminal.

The market is the financial authority within society. It can span from the traders of primitive tribes to Wall Street Banks of modern society. The market views individuals in terms of being fair or deceptive.

The sciences are the institutions of learning and advancement. They are the medicinal authority in society. They can span from the herbalists of primitive tribes to the evolutionary biologists of modern society. The sciences views individuals in terms of being healthy and sick.

My question for you is which of these institutions should have the most political power over society? Which should have the least? And why do you feel that way?

Ultimately I would choose for power in society to rest not with a fraction of society, but with the whole of society. I would choose a world where common humanity was recognized and we lived as one united expression, respecting the gifts of each.

However, coming back from the clouds of idealism to play the game you asked us to play, I would choose a spiritual power. It is most in line with my values. I see it as an imperfect power though, because while it is in line with my own values more than the remaining three you offered, another individual's hierarchy of value may be different and so my chosen power would likely feel oppressive to them.

I struggled with market or state as my choice for least in line with my values. I recognize the benefits each brings, but each also holds a fair level of distaste as I swallow their existence.

 

[Satya]

Ultimately I would choose for power in society to rest not with a fraction of society, but with the whole of society. I would choose a world where common humanity was recognized and we lived as one united expression, respecting the gifts of each.

However, coming back from the clouds of idealism to play the game you asked us to play, I would choose a spiritual power. It is most in line with my values. I see it as an imperfect power though, because while it is in line with my own values more than the remaining three you offered, another individual's hierarchy of value may be different and so my chosen power would likely feel oppressive to them.

I struggled with market or state as my choice for least in line with my values. I recognize the benefits each brings, but each also holds a fair level of distaste as I swallow their existence.

So you would choose the church in a spiritual sense over the sciences, the state, and the market? Interesting.

How do you feel about the argument that some of the other members made for the sciences, as tempered by philosophy, leading in power? Would you advocate spirituality tempered by science? Why are the state and the market so distasteful to you?

 

[jn56uytrx]

So you would choose the church in a spiritual sense over the sciences, the state, and the market? Interesting.

How do you feel about the argument that some of the other members made for the sciences, as tempered by philosophy, leading in power? Would you advocate spirituality tempered by science? Why are the state and the market so distasteful to you?

To me the most positive expression of science is about a respect for our nature and a desire to discover that nature more completely. To me religion at it's best is also about a respect for our nature and a desire to discover that nature more completely. So the idea of the best of these two options intertwined is not only very appealing to me, but perhaps superior to either of them standing alone.

I suppose the state and market are distasteful to me simply because of the way in which I've experienced them. I believe they are equally potentially beneficial and destructive, but by my observation too much ego and greed and individualism at the expense of others who share the human experience seems to flourish in these systems.

I recognize that the same could be said about religion and science and be just as true (though to my observation, the least culpable on this front is probably science).

I think that perhaps whether a person values this system or another boils down to the sorts of things that person values and what kind of experience that person has had with a particular system.

In my case, I tend to value compassion and a humanistic approach. My personal experience of religion most closely aligned with these values, but my experience of science follows not far behind. Unfortunately my experience of the state and the market thus far has not been aligned as closely with my values, but I can envision there could be an expression of both satisfyingly compassionate and humanistic.

 

[Satya]

This thread has given me an idea for a fictional analogy I think I will write later.