Moral realism for the losers and the underdogs
So might makes right. Some people become the winners, some the losers.
It goes without saying that the winners are happy, convinced they are living worthwhile, meaningful lives.
And that the losers, the underdogs are not. But they still live, somehow, they keep going.
Is there a theory of how even the losers and the underdogs can have some peace of mind and some sense that their life is worth living?
Is there a philosopher or other author who has written about this?
(Or is philosophy, like history, written by victors?)
It goes without saying that the winners are happy, convinced they are living worthwhile, meaningful lives.
And that the losers, the underdogs are not. But they still live, somehow, they keep going.
Is there a theory of how even the losers and the underdogs can have some peace of mind and some sense that their life is worth living?
Is there a philosopher or other author who has written about this?
(Or is philosophy, like history, written by victors?)
Comments (66)
It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
And his way of coping with his underdog status was to be convinced he is of divine origin with special powers and special rights.
Hardly a heuristic that one could apply to oneself ... and still be able to function in the real world.
Jesus was not 'convinced of his divine powers'. When asked, he demurred - 'It is not I that is good'. And when he suffered on the Cross, he cried out 'why have you forsaken me?'
That emporers and kings made Christianity an imperial creed is another matter. So too the victory of the institution that claimed to be his representative on Earth. But Jesus' victory, such as it was, was attained through complete self-abandonment.
Anyway, that's my 'Easter thought', I'm not going to pursue this as a philosophical debate.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's a shame.
I think that's supposed to ease the stringency of the saying so as to avoid offending rich Christians. The Jesus cult was very anti-establishment, so the obvious meaning is probably the right one.
Can you provide an example of the kind of winner and situation you mean?
This doesn't follow at all. People routinely do things they think will make them happy and end up doing themselves more harm than good. I doubt very much that the majority people who live by the might makes right credo qualify as happy. Are bullies usually happy people?
You redefine what constitutes losers and winners so it fits you, and convince yourself and others of that redefinition. Jesus is actually a good example of that.
Quoting baker
Nietzsche has, though not as an advocate of it evidently. Anyway this is more the purview of religion, of priests, the philosopher is typically the antipode of that... so they are probably not the best source for this kind of thing.
What do you mean by "right"? Winning something does not make one right. It simply makes one a winner. There is more than one way to win at something -brains can win out over brawn in many instances. Just look at humans vs neanderthals. Who is now extinct?
I used to have a quip that went something to the effect "That which is consumed by the fittest must itself have been fit."
That may not sound like any consolation to that which gets consumed, but simply making oneself worthy of consumption can be a good life. Live it it. And remember, with gratitude and grace, you too are consuming in the process.
Consider the old adage that "You are what you eat." So we have an elk that breaths the cleanest air, drinks the cleanest water, eats the cleanest grass, climbs up and down mountains all day, and stays "on edge" in the predator-prey relationship. You can hone your edge on that, by stacking the odds of your success in hunting against you, with your hands, a knife, a spear, a bow, a rifle, artillery, or an air strike. You can do it on foot or riding a quad or whatever.
Having the "luxury" of consuming the following frees up the choice of how you want to hunt the foregoing:
Here we have a fat, stupid, bawling, shit-smeared, fly-covered, antibiotic-ingested, steroid-injected creature standing on three feet of it's own shit and piss, drinking putrid water, eating rotten corn silage, shoulder-to-shoulder and face-ass with neighbors whilst breathing their flatulence, only to be herded up a ramp, watching the peer in front get killed with a bolt to the head, and then "next."
Be the elk.
In that case, you are doing everyone, including yourself, a favor.
Granted, but the historical figure probably expected God to send angels to fight off Rome and restore the kingdom of Israel. He most likely didn't expect he'd get crucified and then worshipped as a savior for a new religion.
And woe to the blade of grass in the Oxen's belly. But it too, had to be fit, or the oxen could not pull the plow.
Since everybody is bringing Christianity into this discussion as the salvation for the powerless, I can’t resist mentioning Nietzsche, who turned this notion on its head by performing a psychoanalysis of the drive to religion. Nietzsche claimed that all of humanity is motivated by one primary drive, the will to power. This doesn’t mean possessing power that we wield over others, but a constant becoming as self-overcoming and self-transformation. Christian piety arose as will to power becoming sickly and turning against itself, as a strategy of those who were oppressed to gain revenge against those who dominated them by elevating self-denial ( the ascetic ideal) to a primary principle.
I don’t agree with everything Nietzsche said, but I do think Will to Power is a wonderful antidote to the repressive impulses of religious piety, which ultimately is used as a weapon to bludgeon non-conformists into submission.
I suggest the terms of the OP’s query, in construing power as an opposition between those who are powerful and those who are powerless, already pre-suppose the ascetic ideal.
It makes right if it benefits you. Conquest, besting or outwitting another, or otherwise doing something you would not wish to be done to yourself, etc. If not, it's wrong. Criminal activity, terrorism, cheating, etc. Hypocrisy is a pledge one takes and a lifestyle one embraces, one that can be sustained with adequate numbers and resources, but if ever placed under impartial and non-biased scrutiny won't stand for much.
We've all won things, we've all lost things. Unless the winner decides to flip the game board over, perhaps out of fear, you just try, try again. Or perhaps you mean in the context of peoples and nations? Eh, the same applies. Unless you live in a dictatorship, of course. Which is the equivalent of flipping the game board over after a single victory.
Quoting baker
Right so peoples and nations. A man without a conscious is no man at all, just another beast of the Earth. They will busy themselves with worldly pleasures, material pursuits, and other vain pastimes until they expire, at which point another will surely take their place. Going through the motions of life absent of a conscious or empathy for one's fellow man, what do you have? A purposeless, transient being who knows only to steal, kill, and destroy. One who will never truly know the finer things in life that do not come with a price tag or physical value, for he will be too busy defending that which does, with mind, body, and soul. A life with little more compassion outside of that which serves the self.
Sure in a war scenario the losing party may experience great hardship, perhaps constant torment or even torture if not death. This is unfortunate. Not much redemption can be found in such a case. Save for the existence of a God and the knowledge, though often fleeting, that one will be rewarded for his good deeds and sacrifice, and so others punished for their misdeeds and disregard for human life. In which case, regardless of absolute existence, one knows they're right and with every breath and ounce of motivation they can muster, serve a cause greater than any enemy force on Earth. For the enemy will seek to demoralize, by refusing to be so, you fight the good fight, and show the enemy that the very enemy of God, is the man in the mirror.
Besides. A cycle of violence is exactly that- a cycle. It doesn't end. Power is a pendulum, not a single stone tablet unchangeable. No winners have never been losers, and no losers have never been winners. Why would either have a motivation to make war if this was not true? We see "reality" as set in stone and able to be fully comprehended when in fact it is mere circumstance, a snapshot or photograph of how the state of affairs happens to be in that moment of time. Sort of like how we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and those who disagreed were charged with heresy. Or like how the idea of men flying through the skies, communicating messages halfway around the world in an instant, or breathing underwater was pure and utter insanity. Things change. Those who are unprepared, complacent, or set in their ways, have the most to lose. Pride comes before the fall.
A few things you might want to read around: "ressentiment" in Nietzsche from the blowhards can use this to punch down angle. "bourgeoise morality" is a Marxoid concept for the blowhards to punch up with. The idea of a "justification narrative" is useful in that regard too.
Also, a word of unsolicited advice, don't think you're above and untouched by these things just because you can recognise them for what they are. You're implicated, like I am. No values escape rhetorical context.
Yes. Non-religious "theories" that come to mind: Hellenic Cynicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pyrrhonism ... Chinese Dàoji? ... Indian (non-Vedic) ?rama?a tradition of e.g. Jainism, Buddhism, Charvaka ...
The mainstream tradition of Western Philosophy (Plato-Aristotle-Aquinas + Descartes-Kant-Hegel) is "written by the victors" but there's always been counter-traditional writings by e.g. Hellenes, Nominalists, Immanentists (i.e. radical secularists), Freethinkers, Libertarians, Pragmat(ic)ists, Absurdists, etc ... Daoists and ?rama?aists in China and India, respectively.
Here's another perspective on that:
[quote=link]
—The fate of the Gospels was decided by death—it hung on the “cross.”... It was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only—it was only this appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the real riddle: “Who was it? what was it?”—The feeling of dis may, of profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their cause; the terrible question, “Why just in this way?”—this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here everything must be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a meaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple excludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: “Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?”—this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one’s self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in his character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present its opposite. Obviously, the little community had not understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by this way of dying,the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of ressentiment—a plain indication of how little he was understood at all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself, was to offer the strongest possible proof, or example, of his teachings in the most public manner.... But his disciples were very far from forgiving his death—though to have done so would have accorded with the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared to offer themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a similar death.... On the contrary, it was precisely the most unevangelical of feelings, revenge, that now possessed them. It seemed impossible that the cause should perish with his death: “recompense” and “judgment” became necessary (—yet what could be less evangelical than “recompense,” “punishment,” and “sitting in judgment”!). Once more the popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground; attention was rivetted upon an historical moment: the “kingdom of God” is to come, with judgment upon his enemies.... But in all this there was a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the “kingdom of God” as a last act, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation, the fulfilment, the realization of this “kingdom of God.” It was only now that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees and theologians began to appear in the character of the Master—he was thereby turned into a Pharisee and theologian himself!
[/quote]
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm
Another angle: Don't take it personally. Just because the Boston Red Sox won, or lost, has no real bearing on you. Your country may have lost the war (or the race to the moon, or whatever...) and that may or may not have affected you directly. Even if it did, "you" didn't lose the war. The collective 'everyone' lost.
Yet another: In the race to the top, most people are losers. There isn't much room at the top, so most people will not win, can not win. Who gets to the top matters on one scale, and doesn't matter on another. I'm content being among the losers (I could be closer to the bottom than I am, though, so to some people I am a winner).
Still, it was probably pretty tough for the average Frenchman to be occupied by the Germans in 1940. It was tough materially, certainly, and it was tough psychologically. But then, who won WWI? France was on the victorious side, even though their northern industrial zone was wrecked, they lost a huge portion of their young men, and they were in bad economic straits. Germany lost WWI, even though their industrial zone remained intact. They also lost a lot of soldiers and fortune.
The winners and losers can be hard to sort out.
It was He of the overenthusiastic moustache who most famously pointed out that Christianity was for losers. He was also enthusiastic about Great Men, provided they were Germanic.
I've found that the Bungled and the Botched are also happy and live worthwhile, meaningful lives.
SO I take it that the premise of this thread is fucked.
For example, my neighbor, who cut into the slope our house is on, destabilized the terrain, so that our house is in danger of collapsing. As if that wasn't enough, he built the chimney and the AC exhaust right under our living room and bedroom windows. And he laughs!
Lawsuits are so expensive that it's not worth taking him to court.
He's the winner in this.
- - -
Quoting Pantagruel
Some do that, sure.
Of course. Look at their self-confidence, their smugness!
The question is, how do they do it?
I mean, without resorting to religion, because a religion is not something that one could take up at will.
How?
OR give some consideration to Solon and Croesus.
Yes, Christianity tends to be portrayed that way, although I don't see why. Christians have pretty much always been in the position of power anyway.
But how are Christians "denying themselves"? By not killing everyone they feel like killing?
I don't understand what you mean.
How does, for example, pointing out that your boss has more power over you than you do over your boss, pre-suppose the ascetic ideal?
- - -
Quoting Harry Hindu
What could be more important than winning??
Everyone has to die at some point. This is not a consolation.
Your neighbors sound like assholes. If it is at all possible, even if it's a pain in the ass, you might want to move.
We can't insure or sell the house, it's been rendered worthless.
Us moving would be just the final jewel in the crown of his victory.
See, this is power: to be able to fuck someone up like that, legally. And still be a good Christian, a good person. Morally superior.
The latter are religions, and the former still require metaphysical hinge commitments that one cannot take up at will.
Thanks, I'll have to look into those (I'm not yet familiar with all of them).
- - -
Quoting Outlander
There is no world court, no impartial and non-biased scrutiny.
Or maybe that's an idle fantasy the losers tell themselves. Perhaps homo homini lupus is simply as good as it gets, and that's it.
Sorry, I'd like to believe you; I used to think that way as well, until recent events made me radically reconsider my stance.
That truly sucks. I don't know if it's feasible to abandon ship and rent somewhere, but I'd be afraid that something like that would drive me to violence. I've had problematic neighbors but never on the level you describe. I can see how the 'good Christian' hypocrisy adds to the dismay and rage.
They each have non-religious sects or schools; as far as "metaphysical hinge commitments", those are matters of aesthetic taste (i.e. "the absolute" is in the third-eye of the beholder).
Here's the thing: What do situations like this tell us about the workings of the universe? My only conclusion so far is that might makes right.
Oh but there's greater. It just hasn't been implemented here yet. So, yeah you're right.
Quoting baker
Could be. So circumstance dictates your reality. And if something were to work in your favor or ever begin to support the premise, you'd jump ideological ships yet again. Yeah.. that's typically how it goes here. Perhaps, as the song goes, we're all just dust in the wind. A man should be firmly grounded in something, even as the tides rise and fall. But to each their own.
I think might just makes 'I can get away with this for now.' After all, if you really thought might = right, you'd have to acknowledge the virtue of your neighbor, whereas I think you'd like to beat his virtue out of him (I would want to in your shoes, and that's what would scare me, the fear that I'd snap and end up in prison, or dead by my own hand to evade prison.)
I'd say not that might makes right but that the world is unfair, that nature is amoral, that sometimes the wicked prosper.
I also feel that 'a man should be firmly grounded in something.' What is this drive toward to some kind of distance from the moment? I like Epictetus & Epicurus. What ideal person is at the center here? How can we keep off the ordinary madness? Be serene, magnanimous, a good citizen, a good friend ? Ain't that the game?
:grin:
Must have some clever waterproofing.
Wonder where the stormwater from you and your other neighbours runs.
Just sayin'.
I haven't jumped ideological ships quite yet, but I do radically question what I have believed so far.
It's that firm grounding that I'm looking for, something that will hold come rain or high water. I haven't found that yet.
- - -
Quoting T H E
I don't actually believe that might makes right -- but I fear it does. Because if you look at how the world usually works: the powerful do get to call the shots.
I make a point of reading stories about survivors, to see if some useful insights can be gained on how to cope with adversity.
In most stories I've seen so far, the person depended on religion. Religion isn't an option for me.
Most others are really just about doing practical things, almost as if the hardship one is experiencing has nothing to do with the metaphysics of the workings of the universe. I find this peculiar and I suspect those personal accounts are holding back vital information, things that the survivor realized when coping with the hardship, but which they conspicuously refuse to share with others.
Okay, thanks, I looked up those. Not yet sure how they compute in all this.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Obviously, life lives off of life, life consumes life. Big fish eat the little fish. There isn't necessarily an evil motive in all this consumption, it's just beings trying to survive. And, of course, when a bigger being with bigger and more complex appetites tries to survive, the damage they do to others is much more than when smaller beings are just trying to survive. Such is the nature of life, such is the nature of consumption.
This is what I sometimes think when I look out the window, and it gives me a small measure of peace.
That helps. I'm with you on the 'ideological crisis' inspired by misfortune that becomes its own second-layer on that misfortune. I'm also with you on religion not being an option (for some people it just isn't.)
Maybe there is something that survivor's can't even find words for, perhaps because it's not conceptual. It's amazing and even disturbing what people can get used to (being 600 lbs, being paraplegic, cockroach-infested homes, working on the cutting line in a chicken processing plant, etc.) But all of these forms of inconvenience and discomfort aren't necessarily as bad as festering resentment. Yet there's something obscene about noble platitudes in the face of others' suffering, and that's why I suggest a more 'materialistic' approach. If things aren't quite bad enough so that you have to move, a gradual resignation to the shittiness of the situation seems like the only option. I guess I know that you already know this, and I wish had something better for you now and for me when things get bad in my life at some point, as they surely will, us being so damned fragile and stuck together down here. Hopefully it's a little comforting to have your suffering recognized. I guess that's a strategy I use, universalizing my trauma, squeezing what juice I can from it.
Being right.
Quoting baker
Then your point is that no one ever actually wins?
But who decides what being right is?
No, just that since everyone is subject to death anyway, death is nothing special, not a sign of failure.
Becoming extinct is a failure in terms of a species. But dying, as an individual, is not failure, because everyone dies anyway.
Looking at the topic matter from the perspective of the species is too general, given that we're talking about intraspecies competition, ie. person vs. person.
Yes, the resentment festers.
There is a point of no return. When one ventures on the path of resignating oneself to a shitty situation, there comes a point from whence on one cannot return to the human race anymore. A point from whence on one will never be accepted as an at least potentially worthy human being anymore. A point from whence on one cannot even conceive of oneself as an at least potentially worthy human being.
Resentment, bad as it is, at least keeps one away from that path, or at least keeps one away from reaching that point of no return. That resentment is the last thing that binds one such person to humanity.
I guess that's moral realism for the underdog.
Thanks.
What use is, for example, Buddhism without nirvana, karma, and rebirth (as the non-religious secular Buddhists would have it)? It's like a car without an engine.
Oh. That's bold.
:fire:
On the contrary, it's more like a Pegasus without wings.
Natural selection?
Quoting baker
99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. We could say the same for every individual that has existed.. Who's to say that all species are destined to become extinct like individuals are destined to die?
As far as the Pali suttas go, the Buddha taught nibbana, kamma, and rebirth.
Yes, the standard passage when one is looking for a thought-terminating cliche.
Trying to turn the Buddha's teachings against themselves, by using one teaching to undermine another is inconsistent, to say the least.
A secularized version of Buddhism (ie. a Buddhism without nibbana, kamma, and rebirth) is a system of beliefs and practices that infantilizes the person who abides by them and keeps them on the level of good boy/good girl morality.
In that case, the prospects for a theory of morality are rather hopeless, if we have to wait for "nature" to deliver the verdict. (We'll possibly be dead by then.)
Unless one takes solace and salvation in being a member of a particular species, the above is irrelevant.
Philosophical pessemism..there is suffering in the world that is inevitable. Best never to have been. Prevent future suffering and form Communities of Catharsis to allow for communal venting and sense of not being the only sufferer. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps advice and Pollyanna moralizing not allowed.
No it isn't. Natural selection shows us that morality is a social construction.
Could you sketch out how it does that?
I can't think of an unequivocal way to interpret "morality is a social construction".
Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". Humans are eusocial animals and instincts for (a) reciprocal harm avoidance, (b) burden-sharing and (c) discouraging free-loading / burden-shifting – my terminology – constitute human eusociality. Studies in early human development demonstrate fairness (b, c) and inclusivity (a, b) preferences (i.e. empathy instincts) are expressed prior to 'normative' socialization ...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/
Our manifest 'moralities' are then socially constructed, with all the cultural-ecological variation (drift) this implies, extending as well as supervening on these empathy instincts. Studies in primates, cetaceans, elephants and other eusocial mammal species have also shown similar degrees of empathy as well. Consider ...
https://yoursay.plos.org/2012/03/27/should-chimpanzees-have-moral-standing-an-interview-with-frans-de-waal/