India’s Future in the World - Outstanding discussing between two intellectual giants of our time

[Joe Shearer]

Nothing intellectual. Two nationalists masquerading as academic historians, promoting Hindu revisionist history. Both are not scholarly trained in the field. One is a journalist, the other is a self proclaimed historian (his background is in engineering/computer). Not to mention, he has a string of plagiarism charges.

Two charlatans with the highest reputations among the disreputable. The journalist is also a trained and qualified chartered accountant, however.

The OP wanted us to consider the views offered to us; in what way does a diametric opposition to the canonical amount to originality? What is so distinctive about these views, would the OP please say? Going point by point?

 

[Offshore]

After 16 minutes, I am getting lost. How could capitalism even reject social relationship? The economics IS a type of social relationship. It is a relationship between men to exchange goods and services and it makes up a very large part of social relationship people engage every day.

congratz! you just wasted 16 minutes of your life!

 

[sankranti]

Capitalism couldn't care less about culture and history because those are not its concerns. But a capitalistic society isn't ruled by capitalism only. I will be very worried if capitalism starts to define culture, arts, or whatever else people do that are not really about exchange of goods and services.

On the other hand, communism/socialism wants to be know-it-all and control-it-all. That is why in capitalistic society, you can get religious freedom while in communistic society, you get much less of it.

When you define a society as a "capitalistic society" then you have already established the ground rules that determine other dynamics operating in the society. The primacy is capital.

Same with communism. They only differ on model of owning that capital. Its a property dispute as defined by gurumurthy.

Both draw on Hegelianism to define the underlying idea that govern both societies.

This is explained if you hear upto 18 mins to 20 mins.

congratz! you just wasted 16 minutes of your life!

Part 3 deals with china in parts.

Two charlatans with the highest reputations among the disreputable. The journalist is also a trained and qualified chartered accountant, however.

The OP wanted us to consider the views offered to us; in what way does a diametric opposition to the canonical amount to originality? What is so distinctive about these views, would the OP please say? Going point by point?

LOL... more ad hominem attacks on the speakers and on the OP

Defined as a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the topic.

You seem keen on ensuring people do not hear the speakers , much less discuss on it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

LOL... more ad hominem attacks on the speakers and on the OP

Defined as a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the topic.

You seem keen on ensuring people do not hear the speakers , must less discuss on it.

On the contrary, I am challenging you to explain to us what you have understood of the speakers' notions, instead of setting them up as icons. I am challenging you to initiate the discussion of the topic(s), rather than putting up two talking heads, treating them with overblown reverence, and failed to explain what they might represent. All of us who have gone through these talks have formed an opinion; have you? What is your opinion?

 

[sankranti]

On the contrary, I am challenging you to explain to us what you have understood of the speakers' notions, instead of setting them up as icons. I am challenging you to initiate the discussion of the topic(s), rather than putting up two talking heads, treating them with overblown reverence, and failed to explain what they might represent. All of us who have gone through these talks have formed an opinion; have you? What is your opinion?

I am not required to explain anything since the speakers explain their position far better than I ever could.

If there is anything that you fail to grasp, you are free to ask me.

 

[nang2]

congratz! you just wasted 16 minutes of your life!

When you define a society as a "capitalistic society" then you have already established the ground rules that determine other dynamics operating in the society. The primacy is capital.

Same with communism. They only differ on model of owning that capital. Its a property dispute as defined by gurumurthy.

Both draw on Hegelianism to define the underlying idea that govern both societies.

This is explained if you hear upto 18 mins to 20 mins.



Part 3 deals with china in parts.

Capitalism started long before Hegal was born. (By the way, I view Hegal as another charlatan.) The word "capitalism" is only created in recent history. But the capital accumulation, investment, profit taking and loss have been existing and developed for thousands of years. So has been the very principle of capitalism, though it was not called "capitalism" then. It is only in the era when the word "capitalism" was cooked up this kind of activities was no longer demonized, thanks to Adam Smith and others. Unfortunately, the very creation of this word was for the purpose of demonizing it.

Though it is a spontaneous order of human interaction, it only enjoyed a very brief period of adoration, while the consciously created order, like communism/socialism or organized religious order, has been constantly celebrated. In a way, it is a kind of human hubris that makes people think they are more powerful than God.

 

[sankranti]

Capitalism started long before Hegal was born. (By the way, I view Hegal as another charlatan.) The word "capitalism" is only created in recent history. But the capital accumulation, investment, profit taking and loss have been existing and developed for thousands of years. So has been the very principle of capitalism, though it was not called "capitalism" then. It is only in the era when the word "capitalism" was cooked up this kind of activities was no longer demonized, thanks to Adam Smith and others. Unfortunately, the very creation of this word was for the purpose of demonizing it.

Though it is a spontaneous order of human interaction, it only enjoyed a very brief period of adoration, while the consciously created order, like communism/socialism or organized religious order, has been constantly celebrated. In a way, it is a kind of human hubris that makes people think they are more powerful than God.

Hegal had his views, and having a view does not make him a charlatan.

Your post suggest that you reject the notion of capitalism, is that correct ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not required to explain anything since the speakers explain their position far better than I ever could.

If there is anything that you fail to grasp, you are free to ask me.

In other words, you haven't heard them. You haven't picked out the obvious mistakes - let us start with the first talk and progressively go forward. Will you accept that?

 

[sankranti]

In other words, you haven't heard them. You haven't picked out the obvious mistakes - let us start with the first talk and progressively go forward. Will you accept that?

You are free to assuming anything that will serve your confirmation bias.

I reject nothing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Capitalism started long before Hegal was born. (By the way, I view Hegal as another charlatan.) The word "capitalism" is only created in recent history. But the capital accumulation, investment, profit taking and loss have been existing and developed for thousands of years. So has been the very principle of capitalism, though it was not called "capitalism" then. It is only in the era when the word "capitalism" was cooked up this kind of activities was no longer demonized, thanks to Adam Smith and others. Unfortunately, the very creation of this word was for the purpose of demonizing it.

Though it is a spontaneous order of human interaction, it only enjoyed a very brief period of adoration, while the consciously created order, like communism/socialism or organized religious order, has been constantly celebrated. In a way, it is a kind of human hubris that makes people think they are more powerful than God.

Hegal had his views, and having a view does not make him a charlatan.

Your post suggest that you reject the notion of capitalism, is that correct ?

Please, gentlemen, before coming to these substantive points (@nang2 has said something remarkable, that invites comment, but that later), would it be possible to refer to the idealist philosopher as HegEl and not as spelt? Thanking you both in anticipation.

You are free to assuming anything that will serve your confirmation bias.

I reject nothing.

Have you any comment about Gurumurthy's remarks in the first recording? Specific and related to his actual words?

You are aware that everyone can see you tap-dancing around the questions put to you.

You are free to assuming anything that will serve your confirmation bias.

I reject nothing.

Please don't use cuttlefish ink and evade the issue.

Have you, or have you not heard the talks yourself? What is it that Gurumurthy has said that is outrageous? (or outstanding, if you prefer)? Specifying the topic will obviously have you scrambling to search for the passage and to frame a passable reply, so I leave it to your prior reading of the topic.

 

[sankranti]

Have you any comment about Gurumurthy's remarks in the first recording? Specific and related to his actual words?

You are aware that everyone can see you tap-dancing around the questions put to you.

I agree with all of Gurumurthy's views.

Next question ?

Please don't use cuttlefish ink and evade the issue.

Have you, or have you not heard the talks yourself? What is it that Gurumurthy has said that is outrageous? (or outstanding, if you prefer)? Specifying the topic will obviously have you scrambling to search for the passage and to frame a passable reply, so I leave it to your prior reading of the topic.

1. I have never said Gurumurthy said something outrageous.

2. Ad hominem attacks on me just shows everybody how insecure you are to discuss the topic. My sympathies for your cowardice.

 

[nang2]

Hegal had his views, and having a view does not make him a charlatan.

Your post suggest that you reject the notion of capitalism, is that correct ?

Sometime you have to use terms because other people are using, not because you like them. Often those terms need better definitions before a conversation is possible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree with all of Gurumurthy's views.

Next question ?



1. I have never said Gurumurthy said something outrageous.

2. Ad hominem attacks on me just shows everybody how insecure you are to discuss the topic. My sympathies for your cowardice.

In other words, you refuse to commit yourself to any statement showing any knowledge whatsoever of the talk.

We can go back to your utterly laughable evasion stating that you agree with all Gurumurthy's views after you show your investment in what you are asking us to watch.

 

[sankranti]

Sometime you have to use terms because other people are using, not because you like them. Often those terms need better definitions before a conversation is possible.

I do not disagree. I take that as a confirmation of rejection of capitalism and communism by you.

 

[nang2]

I do not disagree. I take that as a confirmation of rejection of capitalism and communism by you.

I don't reject capitalism as a spontaneous human order. I do reject communism.