On another thread, ts posted the following:
Class is a huge determining factor in how the world runs. [...]
Powerful people usually come from powerful backgrounds.
The rich usually stay rich.
The poor usually stay poor.
Social mobility can transform individuals, sometimes, but at a level that will transform society it is a lie.
Now, I have some problems with this, but it may be that they are partly problems of definition. Whatever, it raises questions that I think may be fundamental to the way we see our society, and some of its problems and their causes.
I wonder if we might be able to have a decent philosophical debate on this topic, with no rambling posts with massive quotes, no name calling, no hate at the Royal Family, no digs at newspapers and/or their readers (including from me at the Guardian) and none of the usual stuff from the usual mob that doesn't get anybody anywhere.
May I suggest that we agree to make, within each post, a maximum of three concise points which we attempt briefly to justify, and that if we respond to a fellow-poster directly we respond clearly to particular ideas or comments?
-----
If I may, I'll start:
I don't belive that it is "class " that determines our success and our influence on the world, though I think that one's background and family (which don't in my view equate snugly to "class") play a part, of which their perceived "class" will be but one factor.
The reason I don't believe it because there have been so many exceptions, where "upper" class children have signally failed and "lower class" children have spectacularly succeeded. In my view that has been down to many other aspects: morality, work ethic, self-belief, luck, love, unselfishness/selfishness of parents, values, integrity and - paramount - intelligence.
Class is a huge determining factor in how the world runs. [...]
Powerful people usually come from powerful backgrounds.
The rich usually stay rich.
The poor usually stay poor.
Social mobility can transform individuals, sometimes, but at a level that will transform society it is a lie.
Now, I have some problems with this, but it may be that they are partly problems of definition. Whatever, it raises questions that I think may be fundamental to the way we see our society, and some of its problems and their causes.
I wonder if we might be able to have a decent philosophical debate on this topic, with no rambling posts with massive quotes, no name calling, no hate at the Royal Family, no digs at newspapers and/or their readers (including from me at the Guardian) and none of the usual stuff from the usual mob that doesn't get anybody anywhere.
May I suggest that we agree to make, within each post, a maximum of three concise points which we attempt briefly to justify, and that if we respond to a fellow-poster directly we respond clearly to particular ideas or comments?
-----
If I may, I'll start:
I don't belive that it is "class " that determines our success and our influence on the world, though I think that one's background and family (which don't in my view equate snugly to "class") play a part, of which their perceived "class" will be but one factor.
The reason I don't believe it because there have been so many exceptions, where "upper" class children have signally failed and "lower class" children have spectacularly succeeded. In my view that has been down to many other aspects: morality, work ethic, self-belief, luck, love, unselfishness/selfishness of parents, values, integrity and - paramount - intelligence.
Comment