I think we might have been done? I argued that you choosing Hamlet as your favourite work of fiction kinda made it seem like you were just trying to pick something that no one could disagree with and that wouldn't be controversial or that you'd actually have to defend. You assured me that wasn't the case and that you really are moved and inspired by Hamlet above and beyond anything else, and...I guess that's it now?

On another note, I don't know what songs inspire you all...

I personally love Tchaikovsky's Waltz from "Eugene Onegin," and plenty of other classical tunes I've mentioned...

But one song I ALWAYS feel inspired by--The Battle Hymm of the Republic.

Which is odd, since really...in all honesty...I don't think about Christ at all in that song, and he's mentioned plenty, it's that one line, and it's even after a Christ line that inspires me...it goes "As he died to make men holy LET US LIVE TO MAKE MEN FREE."

That's just such an optimistic, rousing line it never ceases to inspire...

There's no complexity really, it's more villainous to gain people's trust and exploit people's natural sense of empathy only to screw them in the end. Shakespeare does not give Richard one ounce of moral ambiguity. By any account it's a hatchet job.

@Putin

Roemer and Kalecki are Marxists, Sraffa is… well Sraffa, but as a neo-Ricardian, he can say a lot about Marx, who held Ricardo as a benchmark for measuring all lesser economists. Kaldor and Pasinetti are post-Keynesians who deal with phenomenons important to Marxist economics. That’s why all these authors can expand a lot on basic Marx’s assumptions in a meaningful way, which is a way that improves descriptive power of Marxist economics in regard to prediction of real-world evolution and description of capitalist mode of production. Marxism in my eyes is esentially Marx’s economic theory, branching out to different areas of social sciences is merely application of Marxist methodology and is not necessary for existence of Marxist paradigm.

Roemer showed that there is no tendency for a profit rate to fall even in a presence of fixed capital. He also showed that the “Fundamental Marxian Theorem”, which Morishima formulated as “the profit rate is positive if and only if wage-workers are exploited” is not generally true in case of convex technology (and convex technology is more realistic than concave technology).

Sraffa showed the redundancy and even detrimental value of labour theory of value. He stated several reasons, the most important for any Marxist should be its contradiction with theory of exploitation, as labour theory of value allow for a case when a part of profits is not created by labour. Sraffa also showed, similarly to Roemer, that there might be a negative rate of exploitation even in the presence of positive profit rate.

I don’t dispute the fact that the aim of Marx was to pave a road to a move away from capitalism – first to a system similar to that of Saint-Simon (remuneration according to ability) and then to Fourier (to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability). But if you only focus on actual political action, you are in risk of behaving like a dogmatic wishing to impose his view of orderly society upon others without having any substantial and reasonable claim to do so. Now, that might not seem to be a problem from your point of view but it certainly is from mine.

And social critique from moral perspective is babbling about how is exploitation unjust or that holistic mysticism which tries to create blur the meaning of words like class or value by weaving a web of moral refferences around them.

I'm not an educated phylosopher. I read some of the works mentioned in the school, but didn't find their phylosophy particularly inspiring.

So, my favorite is Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The a book filled with truth, wisdom and insights into life, universe and everything.
Then it turns all those valuable things upside down, inside out, and shows them all from an unexpected perspective.

The book through humor delves into manny important subjects, although superficially.
Most importantly, book sparks imaginaiton, and curiosity about all the things it talks about.

Few of the quotes:
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much: the wheel, New York, wars and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons.


So simple an idea, which spawned many hours of discussion about human race as a whole, it's achievments (the wheel, New York, wars) and values the human race holds dear.

Hitchhicker's guide about Plato's Republic, and governments in general:
The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.


Few on the perspective on humans as the center of the universe:
Several billion trillion tons of superhot exploding hydrogen nuclei rose slowly above the horizon and managed to look small, cold and slightly damp.

She saw the whole infinity of creation (as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake) and herself in relation to it, she saw herself as a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot lost in the unimaginable infinity of the Universe.


And much more...

Also, never forget that Hitchhicker's Guide thouroghly explains that phylosophers are only want to confuse everybody and everything so they can stay in business.
So if anyone actually tries to discover the "truth" and the "meaning", one will have phylosophers national strike on his hands.

The "Horst Wessel Song" inspires me, obi.

Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit

Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen
Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
Es schau'n auf's Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen
Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an

Zum letzen Mal wird nun Appell geblasen
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit
Bald flattern Hitler-fahnen Uber allen Strassen
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit

Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit

Now, THAT is an inspiring anthem.

Obiwan, the example you provided in regard to Plato is an evolution of his thoughts, which is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. I see his hypocrisy somewhere else, although probably my hint to Spartan cliff wasn't explicit enough. Plato admired many aspects of Spartan class system and implanted them in his idealized utopia. He was much more critical of Athens than of Sparta. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that it was precisely the political system he despised that allowed him to be preoccupied with his philosophy, while if he was born in Sparta, he would either not have that possibility or he would be left in Caeadas for such unproductive thinking.

@obi: are you freakin' kidding me? If someone put out a movie portraying Jefferson Davis like Richard III, you'd have protests in the streets and movie chains banning the movie. The Civil War is still hugely important to American life, and it's 2 generations farther removed from us than Richard III was from Shakespeare.

pastoralan +1

@Putin and pastoralan:

First, Putin...I REALLY don't see where you don't see the depth to Richard Shakespeare provides...it's in the opening speech!

For the next responbse, leave the rest of the play aside and just tell me what you get out of THAT OPENING SPEECH, where Richard starts with "Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this Son of York" and so on, all the way, as he laments his deformity, as he tells how dogs bark at him, how he's not shaped--literally and figuratively--for love-making and now feels out of place in this post-war England...

You really don't see any depth, any sympathy being given to the chracter there by Shakespeare or the audience?



And I disagree--to an extent--pastoralan, my point wasn't that there wouldn't be protests, but that those who did protest...well, are likely the same people who are apt to say they wish the South had won and that there was a CSA and so on, which is fine if that's your or anyone else's opinion on here...

But my point is it's not the MAJORITY opinion, and so I think if Jefferson Davis was given the Richard III treatment and made out to be a conniving person with a sympathetic past or reason for his actions--a la Richard's deformity and the aformentioned "dogs bark at me" and such bit from the opening speech--I think PLENTY of folks would see that film and enjoy it.

In the South? Not so much...
Amongst Civil War buffs? Not so much...
But the general, popcorn-stuffing populace? ...I'd have to say yes...

With both the violence and then the sexual tension in Richad III--between he and Anne--I think it's Anne, anyway, with like fifty characters it's hard to keep track--and a hot actress to play his wife/female counterpart...

Yes, Violence + Sex = Well-Selling Entertainment! (ENTERTAINMENT being the key word there!)

Shakespeare knew that much!
The Greeks and Romans knew that much!
Heck, cavemen probably knew that much, it's a simple formula...

Violence+Sex=$ (And You don't need to be a math whiz to figure out why that formula works!) :p

"Roemer and Kalecki are Marxists"

No they're not. Roemer and his colleagues profess a bastardized "Marxism" that is anything but. You cannot claim to be a Marxist and both reject the importance of practice and gut Marxism of dialectics. Marxist methods have nothing to do with rational choice theory or analytical philosophy. Kalecki doesn't even pretend to be a Marxist. He is a thoroughbred Keynesian. Kalecki rejects both the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value - both of which are rejections of core Marxist theory. His account of crises in capitalism was nearly identical to that of Keynes. In fact, many claim he came with the principles of Keynesianism (in particular the IS/LM model) before Keynes even wrote General Theory.

"Marxism in my eyes is esentially Marx’s economic theory"

Your definition of Marxism is so broad as to be meaningless. And for that matter, Marx did much more than develop his economic theory.

"But if you only focus on actual political action, you are in risk of behaving like a dogmatic wishing to impose his view of orderly society upon others without having any substantial and reasonable claim to do so."

It's rather odd to call someone dogmatic while touting theorists who are completely detached from struggle or practice. Marx was above all a revolutionist, and to detach Marxism from the class struggle, to gut it of dialectics, to make it into nothing more than an academic methodology, is to destroy it. Of course you need both theory and practice, as practice informs theory, but the people you're pointing to as having "expanded Marxism in a meaningful way" are largely consumed with writing elegant mathematical formulas and logic puzzles while doing little to help bring about change. In fact, analytical Marxists are so crudely deterministic, at least some of them, that they don't even believe practice is necessary. These changes will just occur, like magic, I guess.

Rather, practice informs theory and theory informs practice, in a dialectical way. Once again pointing to need for dialectics.

The opening speech? Yes, in which he openly declares his intent to be a villain, his early plans to turn his brothers against one another so that the King will execute Clarence, and his ultimate plan to seize the throne through murder and deceit. Clarence enters the scene and is being led to the Tower. Richard lies and says that it must be the Queen who spread rumors about Clarence and that Richard would try to get him free. Then once Clarence leaves Richard expresses his delight at "sending Clarence to heaven".
Richard engages in lengthy monologues talking about his plots to marry the daughter of Henry VI whose family Richard had killed. He also gleefully awaits Edward and Clarence's deaths as it means he will be close to taking the throne.

I see nowhere in which Richard's deformity makes him sympathetic. Anymore than Captain Hook's pegleg and eyepatch makes him "sympathetic". It's common to make villains ugly and deformed. And later, because we see Richard exploit his deformity to gain trust and sympathy only to betray them later, we see Richard's *true* nature (as per Shakespeare), as being 100% villain. We see clearly that his deformity is not the cause of his evil, but that he is just evil, especially since he is very confident in his dealings with women and also physically very capable.

I read the Bible for inspiration and motivation.

My favorite verse is Galatians 6:4 (NLT) "Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won't need to compare yourself to anyone else."

I know there are quite a few nonbelievers around here, but I think we can all agree that the Bible is one of the most inspiring, motivating texts out there.

I like the coffee myself.

Actually, Putin, Richard voices the fact he DOESN'T feel confident around women, because of his deformity, right before he seduces Anne in Act I...

Which is why his lines just after that encounter (I can't remember them exactly) are so humorous, as he's so incredulous, he's like, "Wow...that actually WORKED?! DAMN I'm awesome!" (The Sir Ian McKellan version really has fun with that, ans Sir McKellan is just great...really, even if you don't like the play and think it's a wrongful character assassination and nothing more, jsut watch that one scene from the McKellan version...it's Sir Ian McKellan, you KNOW it's going to be good!

Actually...Sir Ian McKellan AND Sir Laurence Olivier...you know, for a supposedly-slandered guy, Richard's sure getting some serious star power to portray him!) :D

But I still think you're reading the text too literally...but I also don't think we're going to ever come to an agreement on this, and Richard III isn't quite on the topic anyhow--unless the real man feally does inspire you?--so I suppose it's best to do waht Nietzsche and Sartre despised and agree to disagree.

@Gunfighter06:

Not much of a bible person myself, but I can respect that...and that's a nice quote (though if I only pay attention to my work, doesn't that leave open the possibility of my becoming something of a drone?)

Whoops, I thought I was in a different thread. I thought that Bible plug came out of nowhere, so I responded sarcastically, sry.

My inspirational books: Robert Creeley's collected verse, Gender Trouble, Tess of the d'Ubervilles.

@obi - Where in that quote does the word "only" or any word meaning "only" appear. It says "pay careful attention to your work" but it never says that should be the only thing you do or pay attention to. Twist words much?

What's more interesting is the quote right before it which calls for Christians to correct wrongthinking among their fellow Christians. Heh. Paul was dogmatic much?

Actually, it speaks of restoring them to the ways of Christ gently and with great care so the believer doesn't also fall into temptation. Then it goes on to speak of carrying each other's burdens and, in so doing, fulfilling Christ's law (which is to say, love your neighbor as yourself and remember that everyone is your neighbor). But no-believers like to twist that scripture and remove the gentle aspects and the fact that we are to take on each other's burdens, so no surprise on your interpretation there.

And I should point out that the "work" referred to in Gal 6:4 is the work of the Lord. I like this translation better.

4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else

@Draugnar:

I got the "only" part from the "you don't need to compare your work with others" part...

Well, if I don't compare with others, I shouldn't think I'd take an interest in their work, either, as...well, again, I'm going with my "Human Beings Are Self-Motivated" angle, as that's my belief, so if I can't compare or your work isn't to be compared with mine, if iot has no bearing...why should I care, as selfish as that sounds?

It is maybe a bit of a twist, not the quote's intention, I'm sure--that's why I said I liked the quote just by itself--but still...

Ah.

From YOUR translation, then, Draugnar, if that's the quote, I drop my point, I see what you're saying...yeah, that doesn't fit, my objection, with that quote (I like that translation's version even better, actually, a very good sentiment.)

"Gentleness" is a butchery of a translation. "Prautes" in Greek does not mean gentleness. It means "controlled" and refers to one's thoughts, not actions. So in essence it means correct the wrongdoers in a careful and controlled manner.

Not needing too is not the same as can't. Again a twist of words, obi. But I see you got a b etter understanding of what Paul was trying to say. It's about where you find self worth. Is it in how other's view you or in how you view your own accomplishments.

Yes, careful and controlled so as not to be tempted yourself and not to over react to the situation. Remember, even in Paul's time, the "eye for an eye" was still the standard Jewish measure for justice. There was no mercy in Jewish law just as there is none in Sharia Law today.

That's the thing with you Prots. You just pick and choose which translations fit your ideology and then yell at everybody for 'twisting words' without any sense of irony.

"Remember, even in Paul's time, the "eye for an eye" was still the standard Jewish measure for justice."

Eye for an eye was a call for restraint. It was the exact opposite of how you describe it.

Actually, I use a Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible for my own studies. I believe the best translatro is one's own mind. But I do like to study different translations for comparative analysis and see which really fits the original text best.

Can I assume you are Catholic by your use of the perjorative "Prots"? May I use the perjorative "Papists" for you?