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

[sankranti]

No, I believe that you have put these up without listening to a word, or having listened to it without getting a single word. I believe that you have no right to ask for our listening to what you have not listened to, to something about which you cannot say a single sentence, for fear of being caught out.

There is little possibility of a discussion where one of us has listened through to everything, the other is posturing to get his idols some space in the public eye.

I repeat. (for the Second time) You are free to believe anything that will serve your confirmation bias.

Now do you have any other questions ?

The so-called "ugliness" is often due to the disappointment from human beings who demand heaven on earth, especially among intellectuals, who couldn't stand the failures and misery in market competition while still enjoy the material benefits that come from it. The compassion that stems from such a disappointment sustains the human society but the hubris that make them think they could bring heaven on earth destroys it.

That is just one kind of ugliness,

There are many other ugliness like treating humans like commodity, displacing them from their social environment, exploitation without regard to consequences etc.

Similarly material benefit is just one kind of benefit, and it disregards the social, ecological, moral, ethical price we pay for such benefits, the sum total of which is a loss.

A very narrow view of heaven , as compared to a more wider view of what heaven needs to be.

 

[Dem!god]

Are they that tall?

They both are very learned person and and talks sense. You may find their discussion a bit off-putting form your pov because of nationality difference. Moreover tall and short is just perspective, you may find someone tall whome you respect and other short even if word respect him and you don't.

 

[nang2]

There are many other ungliness like treating humans like commodity, displacing them from their social environment, exploitation without regard to consequences etc.

Similarly material benefit is just one kind of benefit, and it disregards the social, ecological, moral, ethical price we pay for such benefits, the sum total of which is a loss.

A very narrow view of heaven , as compared to a more wider view of what heaven needs to be.

This is very typical of intellectuals. They treat themselves too seriously and hold too lofty view about themselves. That is why they resent the idea of commodification in human exchange. But, the resentment is just a mask of not getting the demanded price. That is why when they are highly regarded, they often become supporters of the existing order.

The reality is that as long as exchange exists, everything that is exchanged is a commodity. Without exchange, human beings would still be living in caves. Being commodity makes civilization possible.

 

[Kdpreddy]

LOL.

Don't use words you don't understand!

And "it" goes KABOOM again.

Question is, do you even understand you have been thoroughly exposed as nothing but a blowhard?

 

[cleverrider]

 

[Kdpreddy]

This is very typical of intellectuals. They treat themselves too seriously and hold too lofty view about themselves. That is why they resent the idea of commodification in human exchange. But, the resentment is just a mask of not getting the demanded price. That is why when they are highly regarded, they often become supporters of the existing order.

The reality is that as long as exchange exists, everything that is exchanged is a commodity. Without exchange, human beings would still be living in caves. Being commodity makes civilization possible.

Agreed with small exception. There area lot those who fight the existing order and I believe they abhor calling themselves as intellectuals, although from our POV let's call as one.

For example the 2 gentlemen in the video.
They have taken on the establishment for decades now just by the sheer power of exchanging their ideas with common people.
At times, like when ideas are exchanged, it does not expect anything in return. Just the propagation of the idea itself being the reward.

 

[sankranti]

This is very typical of intellectuals. They treat themselves too seriously and hold too lofty view about themselves. That is why they resent the idea of commodification in human exchange. But, the resentment is just a mask of not getting the demanded price. That is why when they are highly regarded, they often become supporters of the existing order.

The reality is that as long as exchange exists, everything that is exchanged is a commodity. Without exchange, human beings would still be living in caves. Being commodity makes civilization possible.

I am not keen to discuss intellectuals.

But we can discuss ideas that was suggested in the video. Commodification IN human exchange is quite different from commodification OF human exchange. That is what was discussed. Commodification OF humans has a social impact and its not about the price, its about disregarding all other values except "capital".

Service and goods can be a commodity, but a capitalistic society extends that logic to make even humans a commodity and moulds (mutates) the society in these terms.

They argument was not against human enterprise, ambition or exchange of goods or ideas. It was about human ambition that deals only with capital and disregards everything else. The idea of a rational mind as proposed by hegel that discounts the emotion and everything that stems from that emotion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And "it" goes KABOOM again.

Question is, do you even understand you have been thoroughly exposed as nothing but a blowhard?

No.

I just asked the OP to prove that he had listened to what he was asking us to listen to. And there was a dead silence and evasion after evasion after evasion. It doesn't bother me that those of you who have not even understood what Gurumurthy is saying, what he is saying wrong, should close ranks and accuse questioners like me of being exposed.

What a laugh.

 

[sankranti]

No.

I just asked the OP to prove that he had listened to what he was asking us to listen to. And there was a dead silence and evasion after evasion after evasion. It doesn't bother me that those of you who have not even understood what Gurumurthy is saying, what he is saying wrong, should close ranks and accuse questioners like me of being exposed.

What a laugh.

This is classic confirmation bias in action and I have no intention of playing along.

Rather than make Ad Hominem attacks on Reddy now, PROVE your Claims and reclaim your prize.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is classic confirmation bias in action and I have no intention of playing along.

Rather than make Ad Hominem attacks on Reddy now, PROVE your Claims and reclaim your prize.

What claims?

 

[sankranti]

What claims?

Refer to earlier posts.

 

[Kdpreddy]

No.

I just asked the OP to prove that he had listened to what he was asking us to listen to. And there was a dead silence and evasion after evasion after evasion. It doesn't bother me that those of you who have not even understood what Gurumurthy is saying, what he is saying wrong, should close ranks and accuse questioners like me of being exposed.

What a laugh.

And "it" keeps going KABOOM.

Ok, let's play your silly kindy game of insulting each other.
Care to explain the below quote from you?

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

Tragic that you who pretend to be champion of free speech, a light bringer to ideas, a path breaker to utopia, in YOUR FIRST POST on topic spew such hatred, derision and venom.

It's not about whether anyone understood Gurumurthy. There is saner debate happening which you conveniently don't WANT to participate. You only want to discuss people by your choicest abuses masquerading with words - ENOUGH

Now either discuss the topic or Foff.
If you keep up with this silly kid stuff (really man, how old are you?) of insulting people at drop of hat, you will get nothing derision.

 

[wiseone2]

El Sidd

One is enough. We love dictators.

which one ??

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.

capitalism impacts culture and is impacted by culture

 

[Kdpreddy]

which one ??



capitalism impacts culture and is impacted by culture

One man's dictator is another man's liberator.
Wait, am I becoming an "intellectual" now?

 

[wiseone2]

One man's dictator is another man's liberator.
Wait, am I becoming an "intellectual" now?

i am fine with dictatorships if we can agree on who the dictator is