I am applying them correctly, and it’s important, your shift in definition of them is more semantical than functional. You think the name of a concept is the driving factor in what it is, functionally. I can point you to Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy if you don’t trust my knowledge of philosophy.
When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers. This is an absurd definition that adds confusion, rather than clarity. A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all. They are administrators and managers that society has chosen to refer to as “owners” despite not being such in any traditional capacity, and by “traditional” I mean in all of history.
This form of “ownership” is so far divorced from the common meaning of the term that its only purpose is for the semantical game you’ve decided to play.
Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy
He’s definitely mixing things up, so I’m not surprised you mix them too… he even talking about a “God”, as if this had anything to do with religion. He even talks about “a soul”…
There are theists who are hard materialists (eg. Thomas Hobbes), and there are atheists who are hard idealists (eg. Bernardo Kastrup). The ideas in that book in relation to philosophy of the mind must be a product of its time.
And he uses the term “materialism” as a broad term, despite all the different forms of materialism that exist (epiphenomenalism being one of them… and from what I read he seems to be more of an epiphenomenalist).
Personally, for an introduction I would have started talking about the difference between dualism and monism… specially if (like he does) he seems to be discarding the most extreme forms of materialism, like eliminative materialism. Because many readers are likely to confuse his view in materialism with a form of dualism.
When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers.
No, the executive power is a power. It does have a function… in the same way, the management/administrative obligations of a position has a function.
A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all.
I don’t agree with that, if I can’t sell something that does not mean I’m not its owner, it just means I will be stuck with it (unless somehow I find a way to get rid of it).
I also did not say they don’t have that ability, what I said that if the property is a means of production, the rules of the State would force them to require the approval of the State/Workers for any action related to that property. So if the State/Workers don’t agree with the operation, it would not be allowed.
This is not dissimilar to how some places are protected by the State, even when they are privately owned. Some States will try and place laws to prevent certain practices with certain properties. Like forest and so. Sometimes you will not allowed to do certain things with your house if the State does not consider it sensible (like how I’m not allowed to install solar panels, for some awkward reason).
I hope that one day you will understand Politzer, or well, idealism and materialism, even if it isn’t through reading Politzer. Then you will understand why I said you are doing idealism.
You never spell anything out, it’s all semantics for you. Legitimately, your only work so far has been to change the nature of a thing by changing its name. I’m unsurprised that you don’t agree with Politzer if this is how you genuinely view concepts.
I am applying them correctly, and it’s important, your shift in definition of them is more semantical than functional. You think the name of a concept is the driving factor in what it is, functionally. I can point you to Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy if you don’t trust my knowledge of philosophy.
When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers. This is an absurd definition that adds confusion, rather than clarity. A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all. They are administrators and managers that society has chosen to refer to as “owners” despite not being such in any traditional capacity, and by “traditional” I mean in all of history.
This form of “ownership” is so far divorced from the common meaning of the term that its only purpose is for the semantical game you’ve decided to play.
He’s definitely mixing things up, so I’m not surprised you mix them too… he even talking about a “God”, as if this had anything to do with religion. He even talks about “a soul”…
There are theists who are hard materialists (eg. Thomas Hobbes), and there are atheists who are hard idealists (eg. Bernardo Kastrup). The ideas in that book in relation to philosophy of the mind must be a product of its time.
And he uses the term “materialism” as a broad term, despite all the different forms of materialism that exist (epiphenomenalism being one of them… and from what I read he seems to be more of an epiphenomenalist).
Personally, for an introduction I would have started talking about the difference between dualism and monism… specially if (like he does) he seems to be discarding the most extreme forms of materialism, like eliminative materialism. Because many readers are likely to confuse his view in materialism with a form of dualism.
No, the executive power is a power. It does have a function… in the same way, the management/administrative obligations of a position has a function.
I don’t agree with that, if I can’t sell something that does not mean I’m not its owner, it just means I will be stuck with it (unless somehow I find a way to get rid of it).
I also did not say they don’t have that ability, what I said that if the property is a means of production, the rules of the State would force them to require the approval of the State/Workers for any action related to that property. So if the State/Workers don’t agree with the operation, it would not be allowed.
This is not dissimilar to how some places are protected by the State, even when they are privately owned. Some States will try and place laws to prevent certain practices with certain properties. Like forest and so. Sometimes you will not allowed to do certain things with your house if the State does not consider it sensible (like how I’m not allowed to install solar panels, for some awkward reason).
I hope that one day you will understand Politzer, or well, idealism and materialism, even if it isn’t through reading Politzer. Then you will understand why I said you are doing idealism.
You never spell anything out, it’s all semantics for you. Legitimately, your only work so far has been to change the nature of a thing by changing its name. I’m unsurprised that you don’t agree with Politzer if this is how you genuinely view concepts.
That’s your opinion.
It’s all I’ve had to work with, as is your opinion. I don’t think we are ever going to align.