how would the founding fathers react to 2017? women having rights,

they'd probably like acid.
and bic lighters.

"Traps aren't gay!"

they were almost all lawyers so they probably would start representing illegals and taking money in exchange for legal documents

>>134043297
Half of me thinks they'd try and fight a war of seccession, the other half of me thinks they'd try and reform it from the inside out.

Either way, they wouldn't be happy with how the US functions today.

File: 1490484964696.png (577KB, 749x737px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 749x737px

The founding fathers intended for america to be a melting pot of cultures :^)

>>134043632
with how seperated right and left wingers are, im surprised we aren't in the process of splitting up again. with our ideologies we really might as well be two segregated countries. this fucking back n forth two party system is fucking pathetic

>>134043297
I was thinking about this seriously a few days ago. I think the founding fathers would take copious time learning of modern philosophical, scientific, and historical developments. The founding fathers were immensely educated for their time period, but things have changed immensely. They would figure this out and learn a lot.

What would the founding fathers ultimately decide to do after taking a long period of learning? I honestly think they will become defeatists and lament over the current affair of things. In truth, I think the founding fathers would also become Stoics or Zen and take solace in the teachings of Seneca and Dogen. They would come to conclude all actions, at this juncture, are futile, and it's best to just give up.

I know that sounds a little too grim, but I thought over this deeply. I do think, a few of them, might** take up Nick Land's accelerationist approach, though.

>>134043835
Right, and they would also despair at how much philistinism has grown. They would hate modern media, Hollywood, porn, and etc. as being distractions. People don't read scholarly works as much as they used to, and our founding fathers would hate how the average American speaks, etc.

>>134044216
>People don't read scholarly works as much as they used to, and our founding fathers would hate how the average American speaks, etc.

That's such shit.
The average America in the 1770's was an illiterate peasant.

>>134044515
>The average America in the 1770's was an illiterate peasant.

who can't vote

>>134044515
True. On the backs of the losing classes.

To be more precise, the middle and upper classes no longer value being educated on a myriad of topics. The vast majority also don't speak articulately anymore.

>>134044039
Accelerationism is cool

>>134045612
Yeah, I think there may be hope of breaking off our reliance on petroleum. It is so integral to the economic system, and I do not think founding fathers would like how USA is backing its dollar by petrodollar revenue, leading to intervention in OPEC countries:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp

The founding fathers were polymaths, and considering we have the Internet now and Amazon to order shitload of books, I do think they would spend a decade or two reading on a bunch of philosophy, modern economics, science, etc. I do think a few of them may be overwhelmed and drop it, but the vast majority of the founding fathers would continue reading a lot before forming opinions. I feel Nick Land's accelerationism is one of the most realistic solutions, but I do think some of them would find all solutions futile, given the whooole slew of problems we have now.

((They)) are a symptom of deeper problems, such as the growth of global economics, realpolitik, and (dare-I-say) materialist nihilism.

>>134045473
The body of accumulated societal knowledge grows exponentially. The amount of time people have to study is limited. There is not time to learn everything.

Our predecessors ruminated on the classics for centuries, coming to certain conclusions about the world. We no longer understand their worldview, because we have read things they haven't, and we haven't read things they had.

Maybe the standard summaries should be accepted as the distillation of all their study. Their fresh ideas are no longer fresh; they were debated in the past century.

But that requires taking their conclusions on faith, which is increasingly rejected as we share less and less common knowledge with the thinkers of the past.

As the world (and country) become more filled with ideas, from which people can only sample a few in their short upbringings, it is less likely that people will have common intellectual backgrounds. Without a common pool of truths we may have more conflict.

>>134046905
Yes, you understand a lot, and I must admit, you come off as quite astute and intelligent. I have been pondering about the topics you touch upon, actually.

>Without a common pool of truths we may have more conflict.
I agree. I feel one issue with the modern era is how many philosophers no longer agree normativity can be reconciled with naturalism. This leads to moral values, or even unfalsifiable metaphysical conjectures (which are unavoidable), as being arbitrary. If we, thus, come to agree that moral values are arbitrary, and much of metaphysics are baseless (like logical positivists do), then do inalienable rights truly exist? See, this could lead to issues..

>>134043297

"fuck it. we'll pay the fucking taxes"

>>134047441
>philosophers no longer agree normativity can be reconciled with naturalism
In other words, what is considered normal is no longer the rational viewpoint... Or the common "truths" held by society today no longer account for human nature.

Societies must always account for individuals' self-interest. If benefits outweigh risks, people will cheat the system. Society is successful to the extent that it channels self-interest into common interest. A society that fails in that regard will collapse as people split off into smaller societies which align with their interests.

This is evident in the immigration crises, which have forced people to ask: How do we reconcile human rights with citizens' rights? What should citizenship mean? How heavily should we weigh the interests of citizens over those of non-citizens?

>>134043297
They would have started shooting about 60 years ago

>>134048816
No, more like whether objective moral properties exist and whether we can derive 'ought' from an 'is'. Such as "one ought to act like this in such and such context". Basically, a lot of modern philosophy has given up the quest to establish a normative ethics, choosing instead to be moral anti-realists.

This does have implications in the sense of making it difficult to ascribe a teleology to society's movement. Relevant to note is that evolutionary biologists also argue evolution has no teleology too. Modern USA is largely based on the desire of facilitating technological progress and increasing infrastructure, which I am not sure how founding fathers would feel towards. Would they consider this the most noble, beneficial path to take? Would they consider preserving communal stability or cultural integrity as more important than speeding up technological growth?

Consider how electricity, cars, etc. all require either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. How would the founding fathers feel about such a drastic shift in economy, way of living, etc. What would they think of USD being backed by petrodollar rather than gold standard? I don't know, so much has changed, it's overwhelming.

File: patriotic.jpg (426KB, 1304x2103px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1304x2103px

>>134043297
i guarantee they would think bikinis are a pure expression of personal liberty
>especially jefferson and that old perv franklin

>>134044515
>using the word peasant
No small farmers (who actually were able to own their own land) werent peasants.