Date registered: Nov 2008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just my rather stupid $0.02, i don't get what you're asking.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
I wouldn't say it's a "philosophy" as such, perhaps more of a statement. But anyway.
"From each according to his abilities…" - are we talking about what we can expect from someone? Or are we talking about what a person should contribute to society? Certainly, it is unreasonable to expect something of someone, which is beyond his/her ability. It would, for example, be silly to expect a historian to write thousands of lines of computer codes. In any case, the point as I see it here is to do with how you'd define 'ability/abilities'. Is one able to be kind and loving to others? Is one able to exist purely for one's own needs and not care for others? The answer to both is a ‘yes’ for everyone, surely. The most anyone can do is limited by his or her abilities. But whatever they choose to do (or not to do) has nothing to do with said abilities.
"… , to each according to his needs." – again, are we talking about all that is required to exist or are we talking about what is required for a happy existence? Are we talking about what a society should provide for its members? Since we’re on a Mercedes forum, I’d say we all know that for a relatively happy existence, one requires more than the bare minimum. It is natural that one strives to obtain what one needs or even want. IMO a happy society is one in which a person can obtain what he needs through reasonable means without adversely affecting anyone else... sort of.
Anyway, I'd have to say there's nothing wrong with the sentence, and for me there isn't anything in it to agree or not agree. If there were words like 'if', 'only' etc. in it, may be there'd be more of a point to it.
The way I see it, it SEEMS to say that everyone gets to do what they're good at and everyone gets what he/she needs. But it doesn't.
Last edited by x838nwy; 11-13-2008 at 07:41 PM.