Philosophy question

[eFestivals]

That doesn't make the action political

it does. It has the effect of organising others by the unavoidable impact of your own actions onto them.

What makes the action political is when it is decided on the basis of others.

which is exactly what happened by the impact of your actions onto others.

My eating is not a consequence of a policy, it's the consequence of my being human.

Do you really think that you don't have a policy of eating?

Just because that policy is a result off being human, it doesn't make it not-a-policy. Many things (all things perhaps) have multiple aspects to them.

You seem unable to grasp the very reality of the faculties of the human being that exist in solitude. Every single point you make is dependent on there being an other person.

I've asked you many times to give me an example of something which has that solitude. Until you're able to to, they're jusyt empty words.

The simple fact is that there is nothing which a person can do in modern life which has absolute solitude. Everything a person does is led by others and impacts back onto others.

You're just repeating yourself. I've shown this to be wrong.

No, you've merely said that it is.

Give me an example which holds up. I know that you can't, as do you if you remove your head from the factually wrong dogma you've bought into.

[eFestivals]

Then they don't eat because 'every person is a part of an organised group' as you stated. They do it REGARDLESS of being part of a group. Ergo, they do not eat for political reasons.

Yes, people eat regardless of everything else.

But their eating still impacts onto everyone else, and that impact influences all others. That impact onto others creates an organised group - that organisation is there by the default of everyone needing food.

They may eat in a certain style due to political reasons. This is exactly what Marx was on about with regards to class. But no one of repute has ever tried to suggest that the idea of eating is political. The suggestion is absurd.

As I've said, everything is political, because of its impact onto others. That's a fact that you can give no examples (from modern life) of to disprove.

If you can't accept this truth, then you are - yet again - dismissing the reality of your existence. But I'm hardly surprised, as you always give unprovable dogma precedence over reality.

[worm]

it does. It has the effect of organising others by the unavoidable impact of your own actions onto them.

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

That isn't political!

Political is something that has been decided as a matter of state rather than as an individual.

And is had been. Food supply it at the very top of the govts priorities.

[worm]

But their eating still impacts onto everyone else, and that impact influences all others. That impact onto others creates an organised group - that organisation is there by the default of everyone needing food.

[worm]

And is had been. Food supply it at the very top of the govts priorities.

[eFestivals]

Oh christ!

The action of eating does not arise from the government's policy! The government's policy arises from the fact that I'm going to eat. Nutter!

But you're only able to do that eating as a part of the govt's policy. Without that policy you have nothing to eat.

The fact that you're going to eat is irrevocably bound to there being food for you to eat. There is only that food to eat because of the organisation which ensures that there is food for you to eat.

[worm]

But you're only able to do that eating as a part of the govt's policy. Without that policy you have nothing to eat.

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Rubbish! With or without the government's policy I'm going to be driven to eat. The only thing the policy can do about it is change the manner in which I eat.

Really? You have your own garden where you grow or rear every morsel you eat, do you? And have it surrounded by 24 hour armed guards to ensure that your food supply isn't stolen?

But even that would require the political, for the organisation of those armed guards.

Plus of course the organisation via which you are able to deem your land as yours, and have others accept that it is.

There really is no escaping the very real fact within modern life that your eating is very much from the political.

The government policy is only there because I eat.

True. But that doesn't lessen the political aspects of it.

Food isn't there due to politics. It's there due to ecology.

Really?

Then ask yourself why for well over 100 years this country has been unable to provide enough food to by itself feed its people.

What you say only works in a time long past, when it was possible for all to survive via hunter-gathering. But even that has political aspects, as you taking food for yourself impacts onto others by making those specific food items you eat unavailable to others.

There is only food to eat because of ecology Neil.

So farmers are wasting their time are they?

Edited December 16, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Really? You have your own garden where you grow or rear every morsel you eat, do you? And have it surrounded by 24 hour armed guards to ensure that your food supply isn't stolen?

But even that would require the political, for the organisation of those armed guards.

There really is no escaping the very real fact within modern life that your eating is very much from the political.

[eFestivals]

All you've shown is that there is no escaping the very real fact that the manner in which you eat (such as the food you're provided with) is dictated to by politics. I've already said this Neil.

But my point here was that the need to eat in the first place derives from being human, not from matters of state. I need to eat regardless of the style in which the state provides it. Therefore, you cannot say that the need to eat is political; though it may be a political concern.

The need to eat is a-political (meaning that it happens regardless of politics). The style in which I am prodived with food is political (which is all you're saying).

Your definition of apolitical is wrong (why am I not surprised? ) - it's f**k all to do with whether something happens regardless of politics, and everything to do with whether or not it's free of politics. The exact definition is "of no political significance".

As to whether there's any significance to the politics is of course subjective. But your rejection of the significance that exists in reality doesn't really remove the political significance, it just shows that you reject the reality.

The fact that your need to eat requires you to eat and so denies that food to others makes it political.

You cannot have a need to eat without it also including you eating. Else you're dead and we're not having this convo.

You making up lines which says when there's a relationship or not between such things is only you making something up. It doesn't remove the relationship, which cannot be broken.

As ever, you're working from a view which is contrary to the indisputable reality.

But all that aside, it's all an irrelevance anyway within this thread. No policy can be formed around the need to eat.

The political aspect is created as a result of my and others a-political needs to eat.

Yet the very proof that it IS political is that your need to eat has required political intervention for your need to be fulfilled. The need to eat cannot be separated from eating.

Yes really. The politics of food exists because a state needs to eat. However, food exists because of ecological demands, such as the organic requirement for energy.

the food that you and everyone else in modern society eats exists because of an organisation which produces that food for you.

Even if you grow your own food, that has need of an organisation. Without an organisation of things you have no land on which to grow your own food.

Check your dictionary.

Touche, dictionary avoider!!!

I have no reason to fear any dictionary. You clearly do, as demonstrated by your continual avoidance of them.

Go look up apolitical, and then you'll have to admit that all you've said here has been said incorrectly.

[worm]

Your definition of apolitical is wrong (why am I not surprised? ) - it's f**k all to do with whether something happens regardless of politics, and everything to do with whether or not it's free of politics. The exact definition is "of no political significance".

[worm]

In contrast, War is a political entity as it derives entirely from political interest.

[eFestivals]

If something can happen without political interest, attitude, content and/or bias it is a-political.

Correct.

But the fact that you personally have no interest in the politics of your need to eat doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.

Or to put it another way, if something happens regardless of politics then it is a-political.

and you're back to making up worthless and factually wrong definitions yet again.

As you are clearly only able to tackle this idea by making up worthless and wrong bollocks I'll leave you to carry on by yourself, where you'll be able to reach the conclusions you've pre-decided by dogma without any of the tediousness () of referencing reality.

[worm]

But the fact that you personally have no interest in the politics of your need to eat doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[worm]

'How does that make the need to eat political? It makes politics out of the need to eat - quite the opposite!'

- I'll take your lack of comeback as check mate. Just as well really given the utter ridiculousness of what you're saying.

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Let's try again Neil:

Love, hunger, hate, desire, rain, heat, need, light and air are all examples of a-political entities because they HAPPEN without political interest, attitude, content and/or bias.

Try with the wrong definition of apolitical as many times as you like. You'll always be starting your analysis from a wrong basis, so it's hardly surprising if you then also come out with a wrong answer.

And as I've said from the very start, these things are not political until you make them political by presenting them to others.

your very existence presents your need of food to others.

It also presents your hunger if that need is not satisfied, that you're a person that can hate or desire. Rain brings with it need of protection from floods or even just its wetness and an inability of you (and me) to consider rain without reference to something along with it that's political. Light I'm momentarily stumped with, but air is a 100% shared resource and is blindingly obviously political because of that.

According to the dictionary, an a-political entity is something that exists without political interest, attitude, content and/or bias. So something that exists regardless of political interest can be said to be a-political.

seriously, can you not see the glaring contradiction in those two sentences?

Hunger is a-political. It's actually cited as the second most popular example of an a-political entity outside of love.

Not it's not.

Cited by who?

[eFestivals]

'How does that make the need to eat political? It makes politics out of the need to eat - quite the opposite!'

- I'll take your lack of comeback as check mate. Just as well really given the utter ridiculousness of what you're saying.

You what?

You spout a meaningless line that says nothing of meaning, and reckon that me ignoring that garbage means you win?

Pleeeeaaasseee!

Working on your definition, then barely anything is politics - not even a Parliament. After all, they're making politics out of speaking.

The real definition is got to via this: where there is politics, there is something which is political.

And politics is merely a view over how something which exists should be done or managed because of its impact on others - and your need to eat very definitely needs to be managed, for your own benefit as well as the benefit of everyone else (the ability to fulfil that need).

And even love falls within that. France has laws specifically to do with love ('crimes of passion' would be the catch-all phrase for them), and while we don't the fact they've been considered and rejected makes it no less political in this country.

[worm]

Try with the wrong definition of apolitical as many times as you like.

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[worm]

your very existence presents your need of food to others.

[worm]

You spout a meaningless line that says nothing of meaning, and reckon that me ignoring that garbage means you win?

Edited December 16, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

The definition I'm following is the one you agreed with and the one that is in the dictionary.

It's no definition I've agreed with.

And it's not the definition in the dictionaries I've looked at.

Which dictionary is it from?

Or is it - this is where my money is - a definition you've invented?

Point me at the dictionary you've used.

[eFestivals]

This is such a mind numbingly idiotic conclusion. You're clearly taking the piss.

PMSL.

It's worked on the EXACT same basis as you've worked things for your own benefit. If I'm taking the piss, then so are you.

For what you say to not be taking the piss, then there must be things which are inherently political by their very existence, that only come to exist in the first place because of politics.

So do please tell me which things those are.

[worm]

It's no definition I've agreed with.

[worm]

It's worked on the EXACT same basis as you've worked things for your own benefit.