Nietzschean argument in defense of slavery
Notion we need to challenge
1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights
People are not born equal. Majority of people ( including me ) don't have what it takes to be a great philosopher, a great artist, a great mathematician, great scientist or anyone in general who contributes to the cultural enrichment of your civilization. Instead of enforcing a system where everyone sees himself as equal to other people , the state should keep the natural hierarchy in place to maintain the highest standard of art, philosophy, science in society and let everyone who is capable prove his worth. Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. The elite class of society should enjoy greater rights and be allowed to get around the law as the culture is in greater need of them. A nation is defined and distinguished from others by its culture. So the value of an artist is considerably more than that of a soldier or any commoner for that matter
What we need to advocate
2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary
Before AI takes blue collar jobs away from the people, we need a class of people who should not concern themselves with politics, science and philosophy. They should be trained to operate as mindless robotic cogs in the big industrial wheel. They need to be enslaved so the elite can have all the time to advance the frontier of knowledge and art. Once the AI revolution is successful, half of the world population will be rendered useless, so it's important to let them know that they don't deserve the same equal rights as the elite who are running the world. The downtrodden members of society should be grateful that they have not been euthanized forcibly for being a complete waste of space
3. The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society and the common people should not be able to dictate the direction of art to the artist. The commoners should be indoctrinated or slowly pushed to acquaint themselves with the elite taste until it becomes the fabric of the society as a whole. In this way, it's the role of the great artist to lift a nation to great cultural heights
Disclaimer : I disagree wholeheartedly .....
1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights
People are not born equal. Majority of people ( including me ) don't have what it takes to be a great philosopher, a great artist, a great mathematician, great scientist or anyone in general who contributes to the cultural enrichment of your civilization. Instead of enforcing a system where everyone sees himself as equal to other people , the state should keep the natural hierarchy in place to maintain the highest standard of art, philosophy, science in society and let everyone who is capable prove his worth. Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. The elite class of society should enjoy greater rights and be allowed to get around the law as the culture is in greater need of them. A nation is defined and distinguished from others by its culture. So the value of an artist is considerably more than that of a soldier or any commoner for that matter
What we need to advocate
2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary
Before AI takes blue collar jobs away from the people, we need a class of people who should not concern themselves with politics, science and philosophy. They should be trained to operate as mindless robotic cogs in the big industrial wheel. They need to be enslaved so the elite can have all the time to advance the frontier of knowledge and art. Once the AI revolution is successful, half of the world population will be rendered useless, so it's important to let them know that they don't deserve the same equal rights as the elite who are running the world. The downtrodden members of society should be grateful that they have not been euthanized forcibly for being a complete waste of space
3. The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society and the common people should not be able to dictate the direction of art to the artist. The commoners should be indoctrinated or slowly pushed to acquaint themselves with the elite taste until it becomes the fabric of the society as a whole. In this way, it's the role of the great artist to lift a nation to great cultural heights
Disclaimer : I disagree wholeheartedly .....
Comments (128)
Aldus Huxley was around 6 when Nietzsche died in 1900.
I wonder if Huxley read some of this stuff before writing Brave New World.
Huxley was a pacifist and perhaps the dystopian nature of Brave New World was his warning against such ideas. Hopefully, the 5 social classes of humans, Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons will never become a government-sanctioned and enforced reality.
Economically, there is no doubt these classes exist in our society today.
That has to be stopped.
There have been many other such dystopian stories before and since.
If we should want to have a charitable look at the argument, maybe we should let the man speak for himself, since he did happen to make this exact argument in the greek state which boils down to this:
1. Life, suffering etc, can ultimately only be justified through art.
2. Slavery is necessary to enable a few to focus on creating said art.
[i]"In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle, to a greater degree
than their own wants necessitate. At their cost, through the surplus of their labor, that
privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to
satisfy a new world of want."[/i]
Since 1) is essentially a value-judgement one maybe could just say that one doesn't care about art or high culture, and the rest of the argument looses its potency.
2) is more of a statement of fact that one could maybe discredit (or credit) on empirical grounds. Essentially he saying that 1) you need specialisation to be able to create good art 2) which requires that some are relieved from the daily struggle for existence 3) which in turn requires that a part of the population produces more/is forced to produce more than it needs for itself.
Maybe this could be true in ancient times, like Greece, but certainly this isn't true anymore in fossil-fueled post-industrialised societies. Because of the amount of energy per capita we have access to, we essentially have all the energy slaves we want, Energy can be translated directly into work, which basically could free up almost everybody to produce art if we wanted to.
A caveat to this story maybe is that going forward, huge amounts of energy is not necessarily garanteed since we kind of have to de-carbonize rather quickly and all (most, sorry nuclear) energy-dense sources of energy are carbon-based.
But they are equal. They are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
:up: , for the first part
For the second part, :chin:
IS that the best folk can do in the face of autocracy? Quoting American mythology?
Quoting 180 Proof
...and yet time and again it is read as encourage the aristocratic nonsense of the OP. Time and again this is how it is read. Your view looks like special pleading.
Not to those who've studied Freddy's oeuvre. Mostly misread? You're unconvinced too? So much the better. :smirk:
[quote=Also Sprach Freddy Z]Life is fountain of joy; but where the rabble also gather to drink, all wells are poisoned.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
Special pleasing my ass. You really need to improve the quality of the Nietzsche interpreters you read. I have a shelf full of brilliant Nietzsche scholarship and none of it spouts the crap you’re referring to.
I'll leave you to work on Quoting Joshs by yourself. I've no idea what your donkey likes.
Name a Nietzsche scholar who reads it this way.
The point being it is read this way. See the OP.
It's not the scholars that are the problem.
It doesn't look like there was any reading of Nietzsche involved in the OP. I have no idea why his name was mentioned.
:lol: OK. Forge ahead with your stuff there.
Typical smug, snotty, shallow response.
Why shouldn't the state Quoting Wittgenstein
and
Quoting Wittgenstein
Can you present an argument? Or are we to rely on wishful thinking?
That is true now. Most people have no idea what artists are doing.
Let me know when that happens.
This we already have. No need to advocate for slavery when we have Facebook.
All l did was present the less politically correct, the less pussified interpretation of Nietzsche. I don't understand why it comes as a surprise to so many people, that their dear Nietzsche didn't mind slavery. He was an elitist through and through, he abhorred enlightenment inspired egalitarianism. Cultural self mastery, whatever it means here, it's simply out of reach for the vast majority of people in society unless there's a class of great individuals ( eg Goethe, Napoleon ) who are in charge of shaping civilizational outlook and this requires civilizational slavery in parallel.
Do you think a college professor will keep his job in this age if he spouts the elitist nonsense in my OP ? A few scholars have nevertheless dared to read Nietzsche as he ought to be read and l can drop their names in this thread but you will dismiss their interpretation.....
:fire:
This is proving to be a fascinating thread. Seems that Nietzsche is still a source of acrimonious and contested views. I wish I could read him but I find his writing unpalatable. Even the easier aphoristic stuff. I guess like Heidegger and Derrida you need interpreters to discover what is really being said, right? Wish I had a better attention span.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Please do, I'd be interested even if it results in a brawl over credibility.
[quote=Wikipedia]Diogenes arrived in Athens with a slave named Manes who escaped from him shortly thereafter. With characteristic humor, Diogenes dismissed his ill fortune by saying, "If Manes can live without Diogenes, why not Diogenes without Manes?"
According to a story which seems to have originated with Menippus of Gadara, Diogenes was captured by pirates while on voyage to Aegina and sold as a slave in Crete to a Corinthian named Xeniades. Being asked his trade, he replied that he knew no trade but that of governing men, and that he wished to be sold to a man who needed a master.[/quote]
Slavery, in my humble opinion, in the long term, dehumanizes...both slaves and their masters. Not advisable, trust me. Hence, I suspect, the need among slavers to treat slaves as subhuman. Quite unfortunate. The bright side to slavery, acknowledging the immense suffering involved, is that modern civilization would've been impossible without the sacrifice of millions upon millions (nothing boosts the economy better than free labor).
1. Suffering, the camel stage in our journey to self actualization is only felt incredibly in the beginning, though its essence is carried to the next stages. Nietzsche was dealing with the death of religion as a meaning giving tool in society and the dreadful emptiness of nihilism. Art for Nietzsche was supposed to play the role of religion. High culture is required to replace something as powerful and comprehensive as religion. The mice can't pretend to not see the cat.....
2. I think you have missed the point. He didn't approve of egalitarianism as a value. Economic pragmatism of slavery wasn't a neccessary "evil" to him, it wasn't only a means to achieve high culture but an essential feature of any society which prized high culture. While slavery isn't making a return, we can avoid getting into the economics part of the argument and use Nietzschean elitist framework to undermine democracy, social activism, social security nets, employee rights, discrimination laws and every idea/practise in society which gives shape to an egalitarian outlook.
Maybe, then again maybe you are also missing a point if you think you can neatly untangle instrumental and intrinsic valuation in Nietzsche. As the philosopher with a hammer he saw his task as sounding out ideals/values (yes it was a sounding hammer, not a sledge hammer) to see whether they where ultimately hollow, or whether there indeed was something to them.
Part of sounding out a value like equality is looking at it from multiple perspective, which typically would include also looking at what said value ultimately entails practically in a society, or in a person. Sure he didn't like equality, but I don't think you can't separate out his 'pure' distaste of the value equality from its material, practical and economic consequences. I think all of that is locked into his perspectival evaluation of it.
Check the work of Julian Young, Brian Lieter, Thomas Hurka.If l get the opportunity , l will collect a list of all scholars with reference, past and present who share the same interpretation of Nietzsche as me
The Queen for all l care is an old decrepit whore who deserves to be shot in the head for being a nuisance. It's a shame she represents the image of nobility in the UK. The noble class consists of great dictators ( Cesar for eg ) , military leaders ( Hannibal Barca for eg ), epoch defining thinkers (philosophers, scientists & artists ). You can include sportsmen ( free solo rock climbers ) who reflect the valor of ancient gladiators. Great actors and directors ( eg Brando and Stanley Kubrick ) should also be included
Contemporary "musicians" for the most part produce commercialized music. This explains the deplorable state of art. Music should not be made for commercial success . The state should be a patron to great musicians ( the music doesn't need to be classical ) and let them produce great art. The common people will obviously benefit from this in the long run. A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society
Do you have a better defense against autocracy? What, in your view, is the best defense?
Quoting T Clark
Could you provide me with the theological roots of rights theory? Where in the Bible (or elsewhere?) is rights theory derived?
Quoting Wittgenstein Peasants do not have to care.
People say "I'm a servant of god" with great joy and immense pride!
@180 Proof
Non serviam!
The seeds of a revolution in there somewhere. Lather, rinse, repeat!
You maybe related to her! :snicker:
If you are nobility, then l am the second coming of Robespierre
He does register a lot of disgust at what appears to him to be life-rejecting behavior and practice, but ultimately he's not offering a prescription for our world. Nietzsche makes it pretty clear that our world is the threshold of a new one which we would have trouble imagining.
You'd have to take his words out of context and extrapolate your own interpretation from there to get the OP.
So you're attacking a strawman.
That sounds like a silly argument. There are plenty of conservative Christian institutions in the U.S. where such readings of Nietzsche would probably be welcome. Of the authors you mentioned I’m familiar with Brian Leiter. He reads Nietzsche as a modernist, existentialist and realist. This interpretation is more accessible to most people than the postmodern reading, because it doesnt require them to understand postmodern thought.
I’m not bothered by what Leiter’s
reading says in particular about Nietzsche’s approach to slavery. Rather, I think it completely misses what is most exciting, daring and radical about his work. For me the larger question is whether you have any acquaintance with the Nietzsche depicted by Heidegger, Derrida , Foucault , Deleuze or other postmodernists. If you don’t know what they claim to be his main thesis (for instance , what is Will to Power , Eternal Return of the Same and their relation to each other) then you are not in a position to ‘prefer’ your reading to an alternative you have no familiarity with.
You sound like an old fogey. Not a fan of classic Rock or Punk? The Velvet Underground were not very commercially successful, but there’s more of Nietzsche in that music than in any symphony.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Do you have the slightest idea what would constitute the ‘crème de la crème’ for Nietzsche in terms of specific values, beliefs, taste in music and art?
Do you think he would embrace any of the specific arts, sciences or political forms that you consider to be superior? Here’s a hint: No.
This is simply because Nietzsche does not advocate for any particular content when it comes to forms of cultural creativity. On the contrary, he advocates for the endless overturning of specific cultural values , which includes all particular creative content.
I don't know. I was speaking from personal conviction.
Physicist recognized the greatness of Einstein, mathematicians recognized the greatness of Grothendieck, logicians recognized the greatness of Gödel. Painters recognized the greatness of Picasso. Linguist recognized the greatness of Chomsky. You don't need to specify the content of art, science, philosophy to make the argument that there's a clear hierarchy of percieved importance in the eyes of those who are most capable of offering a judgment, ie the experts themselves.
Any student of history and culture knows that, each era brings forth new trends, values, ideas so it's stupid to fix greatness to a particular art,science,philosophy form. You should have understood why l didn't specify the content of high art form. My argument still stands, the system of elite artists/scientists/philosophers is capable of finding genius, just as Russell recognized the genius in Wittgenstein, who would go on to disagree with his mentor. Most people don't need a university education, the entry criterion to a elite university/institution/academy should be made sufficiently difficult that only those who are capable of producing work of genius gain entry into it. In fact, the education system itself should cater to the needs/training of geniuses at the expense of common people. When everyone is capable of getting a degree/certificate/qualification/title, you know education has been dumbed down
It's more of a remark and you are against the interpretation of Nietzsche as an anti egalitarian , anti democratic autocratic thinker, in line with my prediction. I don't think we should bother with postmodern thinkers as they don't interpret Nietzsche, they reinterpret his ideas/work for their postmodern projects. I am more concerned with knowing what Nietzsche had to say, without adding my own content, which the postmodernist do.
As you can probably guess from my name, my background is in analytic philosophy ( OLP in particular ) . I won't even pretend to have read the work of Heidegger as it's incomprehensible and l would be surprised if you have read being and time. I am familiar with the work of Foucault but you can quote the "interpretation" of the philosophers you have listed and we'll see if it's really an interpretation. But make sure it's on the topic of slavery since we are not concerned about eternal resurrection, will to power etc as concepts in of themselves
How do the new trends and values relate to those of the eras that precede them? With regard to the sciences in particular, does Einstein add cumulatively to the sum
of knowledge in physics, or is Relativity a qualitative transformation of previous physics that can’t be considered a linear progress? Is Einstein great because he brings science closer to understanding the way things really are , or because he simply ushers ina new perspective? For Nietzsche, the greatness of a scientist is not on how accurately they represent reality but in their ability to break free of the herd, as well as their eagerness to see their theories crushed.
You say postmodern thinkers reinterpret his ideas for their postmodern projects. This is precisely what every Nietzsche scholar or non-scholar does. There is no way to know what Nietzsche had to say without already interpreting him through one’s own perspective, which will likely line up with the perspective of one of a group of notated Nietzsche scholars. You don’t think Leiter filters Nietzsche through his own brand of modernist realism?
Quoting Wittgenstein
You cannot spilt apart subtopics within his work and understand them in isolation from the whole. It is impossible to know what Nietzsche is saying about slavery without first understanding eternal recurrence and will to power. These are the means of decoding his views on all subjects.
I don't think Nietzsche had sufficient knowledge of physics to know how it's technically impossible to break free of the herd but l am sure he didn't mean it in a strict sense. Linear progress doesn't necessarily conflict with independent reasoning, as it can take genius to see the "next" step. Einstein's used the work of Riemann and Poincaré as inspiration for GR, so it's usually a combination of independent reasoning and following the herd which produces work of genius. I can see how this is also true for artist and philosophers alike since they are located in a specific zeitgeist.
Nietzsche was situated in the modern era and we can easily distinguish interpretation from reinterpretation being used for some broader project.
I don't think Nietzsche is a systematic thinker so it's not possible to present his ideas in a packaged form but will to power and other concepts do have a direct relation to his stance on slavery. Will to power in my interpretation, amounts to exercising influence and transforming the world by forcing your system of values/ideals on the world. Eternal resurrection means you should live life in such a manner that you should wish/be glad to experience life as whole in repetition for eternity. A high culture is the the manifestation of will to power, which can only be exercised by the elite in it's full meaning. So its neccessary to enslave the rest of people, so they don't become an obstacle in path of self realization of the ubermensch
Deer mother of god... A fair fuck in the on the back, okay. That's what whores make money with. But a shot in the head?
Forgive me if you went over this before. But where does Nietzsche discuss slavery, let alone be an advocate?
Read his book, "The Greek state"
Okay. I've read almost everything of Nietzsche and cannot recall him ever talking about slavery.
Okay, you mean the Genealogy of Morals. Is there a specific part you can refer to?
:lol:
The queen getting fucked isn't a nice sight. The Royal family is only good for hiding pedophiles. If it were up to me, l would mutilate her....
Nietzsche literally advocates for slavery and many are other horrible practices in this book, the Greek state. It's also one of his earliest work, so you can't accuse his sister of tempering it
"Accordingly, we must learn to identify as a cruel-sounding truth the
fact that slavery belongs to the essence of a culture: a truth, granted, that
leaves open no doubt about the absolute value of existence. This truth is
the vulture which gnaws at the liver of the Promethean promoter of
culture." (Genealogy; The greek state)
:lol:
Now we're talking philosophy! Royal philosophy. Pedosophy!
And who knows what Charles fools around behind the scenes. Motherfucker...
In my reading, Nietzsche is very much a systematic thinker. The eternal return of the same does not refer to a repeating cycle in which the contents of one’s lived memories are lived again the very same way. On the contrary , eternal return of the same is the return of the same absolutely different. What repeats itself is absolute novelty , always in a new way. This is why Nietzsche does not believe that science progresses, that it represents, mirrors or corresponds to an external reality. The only reality is that of the incessantly changing relation of the drives to each other.
As Nietzsche says,
“ Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren’t
we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn’t enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean
comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of
reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect…”( Genealogy of Morals)
Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l.
“Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn,
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated." Geneology of Morality)
Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Quoting Wittgenstein
In your OP, your responses to the above seem to position you as a supporter of this, as you say, "unpussified" reading of Nietzche. Then, however, you end your statement with,
Quoting Wittgenstein
So, maybe you're merely paraphrasing Nietzsche, not stating your interpretation of him.
Then maybe you weigh in on his pungent beliefs with a wholesale disavowal.
Hmm.
At present, I can't shake my sense you oscillate between embracing & reviling Nietzsche.
Anyhow, as pertains to my present point of interest,
Quoting Wittgenstein
What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state? (It seems we on the left have been rebutting Plato's Republic (somewhat ineffectually) for the past 2,400 years.)
Also, has Nietzsche written anything on the topic of strategically planned social stratification not previously written by Plato?
Quoting Joshs
The above read like fast lanes to a nightmare of social instability, with frequent visits to thresholds of disintegration & collapse.
Perhaps Nietzsche's downfall in microcosm was personality disintegration due to an excess of Sturm und Drang.
There are regions of political stability and hegemony , just as there are paradigmatic communities in the sciences. Most of the time we live within these relatively stable communities, so it’s not as nightmarish as it sounds. In fact , it is just a description of how things already work. The disintegration and collapse is something we see on a regular basis. What we don’t see is an understanding of the basis of such breakdowns and how to avoid their violence and disruptive effect. Nietzsche’s philosophy doesnt produce this regular violence of instability and disintegration , it mitigates against the kind of political world we already live in.
I don't see how the passage of Nietzsche is against progress in science. New ideas do dominate and obliterate past mistakes in science but this doesn't challenge the notion of progress. It's difficult to think Nietzsche didn't see the incredible practicality of science in industry, which bears some sort of testimony to the continual improvement of our understanding of the world. I don't know if you have read Feyeraband, a famous post modernist who tried to undermined the idea of progress in science. Thankfully, other philosophers called him out and in this age, everyone can spot the sickening tendency of post modernism to entangle science in the realm of complete subjectivity. But if you turn to arts and philosophy, there's no point in making the argument that there's no progress, as it is the majority view of the historians of philosophy/art
I am not surprised you tried to reduce the "will to power" to merely a mental phenomenon which should be subject to psychoanalysis. It's funny how Nietzsche doesn't mention will to power in the paragraph you have quoted. You want to conflate inner mental drives with will to power and ofcourse it's important to mention the fragmented self. I'm sure Nietzsche pictured a mentally tormented lonely postmodernist loser in his mind when he thought of will to power. NO, will to power manifests in the form of Goethe, Lord Byron, Napoleon and everyone in history who shaped the world with the sheer force of personality & genius. Have you ever wondered why Nietzsche admired Paul despite his clear disdain for Christians. Paul managed to subvert Greco Roman values and reorder the world with new values
How does your interpretation of Nietzsche explain his desire to enslave a great number of people for the sake of an elitist culture ?
Plato's concern was the education of the just soul . Nietzsch(e's is the education of the individual. Plato's concern was the creation of harmony out of conflicting desires. Nietzsche's concern was the creation of the individual who maintains strife, internal enmity rather than harmony.
For Plato although it appears as though the harmony of the soul and the harmony of the city gives us a picture of justice, the fact is that the just city is full of injustice. Nietzsche's soul in internal strife seems to lead to a troubling picture of the city full in internal strife, but strife cannot be eliminated nor is it desirable to do so; for it can only be accomplished through totalitarian suppression which is not harmony but a false image of harmony. But this is not to say that all claims are equal. Like Plato, Nietzsche hold to a hierarchical ranking. For both, the philosopher is "commander and law-giver". (BGE 211) And this is to be understood with regard to the politics of the soul.
How is this not already happening?
Quoting ucarr
None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.
For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.
:ok: Clark Kent (Superman) didn't own slaves!
By saying "none," you're saying you condone the double-standard that, for the same crime, has the judge handing down a draconian sentence to a commoner and a slap on the wrist to a noble.
Your conformity to the status quo, once it's amplified by a smug polity, launches a potent recipe for revolt.
John Lennon sang about nobles keeping the masses doped on sex, drugs & religion. Are you also signed on with this stratagem?
Game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways take aim at the roiling dissatisfaction of the legions of working stiffs. Apparently you think they're effective.
Nathaniel West, like other writers before and since, characterizes Los Angeles as a desert fever dream unmoored from the Puritan stolidity that keeps the rest of the continent sound. At the movie premiere, the downtrodden, the locusts of the land, ignited by Homer Simpson's breakdown into psychotic rage, erupt into mad revolt against the class bondage that mummifies them.
The quick & the clever are forever herding the pliant populace into one or another scheme of usury until, periodically, a seismic eruption of social upheaval lays waste to the cultural order. The first cracks in the facade appear within the glib & gleaming complacency of the conservatives. No?
No. I'm saying, again, that the classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.
Resistence is futile.
Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new.
Do you believe class division & the established social order, like human inequality, occur naturally, and thus no need for any type of social engineering?
Do you believe the law, like class division & the established social order, are natural?
In your sentence above, you use the passive voice with reference to (see bold words above) the fact of classism. If you rewrite the sentence with the verb in the active voice, who will you posit as the actor bringing classism into effect? You can answer by giving an example of the sentence rewritten with the verb in the active voice.
Quoting baker
Do you believe revolts & revolutions are, more often than not, merely superficial makeovers of short duration?
Do you believe revolutions are always the undoing of their authors?
Quoting baker
Do you acknowledge two systems of justice, one for the rich & powerful, another for the commonality?
1. Do you want slaves?
2. Do you want be a slave?
Being an übermensch is not only about doing whatever one wants but also requires resisting one's innate urges/instincts. Nietzsche was telling only half the story, oui?
[quote=Lao Tzu/The Buddha]He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty.[/quote]
Yes.
Attempts at social engineering are useless, at least as far as they have equality as their aim.
Leaving aside what "natural" means or is supposed to mean, yes.
I'll give you an example from just last week at the local grocery store (a small store with only one check-out).
I was packing my groceries, the cashier wasn't yet done with the rest of them, while the next customer behind me pushed ahead even though it wasn't her turn yet (never mind that we're supposed to maintain 1,5 m covid safety distance). She was already waiting for her groceries at the other end, even though the cashier wasn't finished with mine. She almost physically pushed me away. She was about my age, or maybe even a few years younger, a middle aged woman. By my assessment, we were of about similar socio-economic status.
Going by my experience, me saying anything to her or the cashier or the store manager would only result in things getting worse for me. Why is that? Because bosiness, aggressiveness, competitiveness always win, always prevail. Sometimes, they are institutionalized, and this is when we talk of the class war. It is a phenomenon that can readily be observed between individual people; in any given situation, people generally try to establish a hierarchy.
You're asking who is the actor who is bringing classism into effect. In the situation at the grocery store, people would typically blame me. That if I were or at least appeared to be of a higher status than the other woman, she wouldn't dare to push ahead and step into my space. Or if I at least somehow maintained my space better, she would remain in hers. People would typically say that she simply did what every normal person in a situation like hers would do. That the way I behaved simply deserves the kind of behavior she displayed. From their perspective, it was I who brought classism into effect.
Yes.
To answer this with precision, we'd have to look into the historical details.
Of course.
And you didn't answer my question:
Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
Quoting baker
Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? The public needn't be herded together as livestock if they choose to resist. You can't deny, however, that rabbler-rousers travel the fast lane to prison. Most people are so numb with misery they've gotta be reminded of their discontent.
On the other hand, state-sanctioned rabble-rousers score pots of gold for their sage pronouncements, as we've been seeing with the many tongue-waggers hawking that Replacement Theory bosh.
Quoting baker
I must say, Mr. Tweedle-Dumdee Baker, you're over-civilized to a fault, considering your experience at the greengrocer. I see you're a man who shelters by blending with the crowd. "What? I should publicize myself by opposing a shrew?! Messy affair."
Why, I say, someone's got to get you seeing yourself. You're deeply ensconced within a cage bound by gold bars, but a cage just the same.
It's beyond time you got that old rascal Complacency up on his feet and shakin' a leg.
You still didn't answer my question.
Why do you think this has anything to do with not being taught critical thinking in school?
If anything, I think what's lacking is the culture of the heart, morality, and it's this lack that is causing so many problems.
A person can be fluent in critical thinking, and still be a thug.
Oh dear.
Powerful, shaping influences upon our lives are not always blatant.
The short answer to your question is propaganda.
My reasoning proceeds from the premise that all professional governments maintain an aggressive propaganda machine. Propaganda + (the science of) polling_statistics combine to form the bedrock of technique for winning the hearts & minds of the people.
Ingenious propaganda closely interweaves with culture to make a seamless combination so seemingly natural as to prevent native members from even questioning the legitimacy -- both existential & moral -- of the state-sanctioned, core values of the culture. The minority of citizens who actively oppose core values are then easily shunned as radicals, malcontents, degenerates etc.
For example, consider a child born into a small village, geographically isolated. Everyone in the village professes to be a Christian. From day one, the child is casually indoctrinated with Christian ideology. They get it from their parents & extended family, from the school teacher, policeman, fireman, merchant and minister. In this situation, we have religious ideology shaking hands with the culture so tightly as to make the two indistinguishable & therefore inseparable.
But they are separate. Religion is spiritual_moral. Culture is social_political. When all of these potent forces are combined into a tight interweave, how likely is it that a child, nurtured up therein, will turn away from the family & society that fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, inspired & protected them?
Not very likely.
Quoting Baker
Your metaphor above is taken from a crime drama. In real life, the gun placed to the head (and within the head) of the average citizen is ingenious propaganda, not a firearm.
What is the counter to ingenious propaganda? A firearm? No. The counter is critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking is taught in the public skills. However, when students are encouraged to apply such skills to core cultural values, their teachers, being radicals, soon face termination.*
*For an example, examine numerous articles pertaining to CRT.
One of the important responsibilities of philosophy is cultivation of a critical thinking mindset that plays no favorites.
I was never taught any critical skills at school or at home, and I still come up with the question, Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
How is that??
First of all, I don't think people are born so good and so innocent, or so weak and vulnerable as you suggest. To tie to your example, nobody is born a Christian, but people are born with varying passions. I think these determine how strongly the cultural indoctrination will take root in a particular person and in which ways.
Quoting ucarr
I think you underestimate people's cunning and their propensity for keeping up appearances.
I grew up among Christians in what was a majority Christian culture then. These people mostly didn't actually believe anything they were taught at church, but they kept up the appearance of believing. They would ridicule the small minority who actually took the religious doctrines seriously.
Keeping up appearances is an art form in its own right. It's a form of self-defense.
Reinventing the wheel works up a sweat!
As the supply is low, and demand (for quality) is high, prices will shoot up, naturally; almost immediately a Hackliste will develop and consolidate itself.
What's wrong with mediocrity?
The Mediocrity Principle:
1. The Copernican revolution: Earth ain't special.
2. The Darwinian revolution: Humans ain't special.
3. The Freudian revolution: The mind ain't special.
4. The Galactic revolution: The Milky Way ain't special.
5. The Multiverse revolution: The universe ain't special.
:snicker:
Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild and enriching depths of the unconscious?
The unconscious, we have no control over it and it seems to be in the driver's seat - bah! mind! F*****k me!
But we do.
If dreams are understood as a window into the unconscious, it's very much a possibility to refine or ameliorate dream content over time in sympathy with the willful maturation of the conscious mind.
For example: What was once a toothy nightmare wolf is now a licky cuddly docile puppy.
An example from my personal dream journal.
Frued posited dream content to be a surfacing of unconscious material.
:up:
The relationship seems complicated. How is it that adults don't pee the bed (very often anyway, or unless they're trying to) ? How does the sleeper 'know' to resist the urge ? And many thinkers have noted that mastery involves skill becoming automatic, so that the conscious mind is only necessary at the most strategic aspect of the performance.
:up:
It's maybe the primary art form or the mother of art. It's not necessary lying. Virtue is also involved (I may 'put on' the appropriate solemnity at a funeral that doesn't actually affect me much, because I know it's shitty to do otherwise.)
A diminishing of the negative potency of the archetypes implies an ameliorative transformation of the unconscious. When mother is just plain old mother and no more a mystique-laden dual mother-goddess (creative-destructive); when a king is just a man with a crown; when a nation loses its jingoistic aura; when the star spangled banner is just an interesting picture.
And especially the de-mystique-ification of the self: from ego-riddled baby lordling to - a man, no more, no less.
This de-mystique-ification of reality I take to imply a transformation of the unconscious.
Well noted and well expressed. To become a rational secular blah blah blah is like emerging from a long process of the training of the unconscious, until it's hard to be afraid of the dark again or excited by ghost stories. Man becomes lord of this world, in his feeling if in no other way, by exterminating all the demons and fairies.
I see! There's hope then!
At times I miss the spring fairies - but the demons had to go.
Mystique provides inspiration - chanting Trumpsters at the heart of hystery [sic] decapitating the tyrant Pence, for instance.
Over the last decade I've discovered a healthier path to inspiration - Maslow called it the peak experience - via various kinds of meditation and pseudo-hebephrenia.
Now I see it's accurate to call it a healthier aura of world-mystique. One not so infused with the dark hazards of the archetypes - possibly. Unformulatable for the moment.
Quoting igjugarjuk
Thanks. :cool: It's been good getting to know you. Welcome to the forums!
Or a God who experiences everything brought to him by magic, as he desires, not realizing his body is hard at work making everything happen.
Deus ex machina (automatons).
Exactly. I was about 18 when Freud and other writers put the final nail in my sense of the otherworldly. I embraced the myth/theory of the world as an amoral or apathetic machine subject to law (manifesting a blind regularity, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable.)
OK, but I thought the gods just rode down on the machines, to save the day and help the author with a jammed up plot.
Thanks for the welcome and the inspiring posts. You pick a nice variety of themes and authors.
Trying hard to be rational vs. Effortlessly being rational. Wu wei! I'm getting mixed up...or not. Practice, practice, practice...makes perfect. We must develop good habits.
Yes indeed! Good advice. I've only ever got good at things I liked doing. Yes, it required practice, but I only practiced enough because it was fun. So maybe the good advice is superfluous in some sense. Or could be replaced by "find something you like to do!"
:snicker:
He did provide so much material for that particular misreading with his choice target of comfortable bourgeous liberalism and egalitarianism and that style of burning, fanatical, take no hostages style of preach..., sorry, writing. His railings against the fascist and stalinist hypocracies and sanctities would have been more refreshing and more useful, historically. But still, Mad Friedrich is truly a giant, a fundament of our confused Western modernity.
Good points on Nietzsche. Presumably many others had similar political thoughts, fantasies of the macho heroic Fight Club good ol' days. If Nietzsche wrote only this kind of thing, he wouldn't be remembered. It's because he was otherwise a genius that reactionary moments get attention. You may recall Ezra Pound's treasonous activity. There's an archetype even of the especially contentious intellectual who must take on their relatively enlightened peers (who can themselves be left to take on easier targets.) I recall that Nietzsche hated David Strauss, but it's hard to see why, or hard rather to approve his distaste, since Strauss was transforming crude unworldly Christianity into a secularized religion of progress (oh let them keep their little symbols, his Jesus was Satan.) And he was doing it successfully, patiently, from within the system, being read and reacted to (not without some risk).
Since Strauss is largely forgotten, I'll provide a substantial quote.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64037/64037-h/64037-h.htm
If you know Feuerbach's work, this may sound familiar. His Essence was published in 1841, while Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil was out in 1886. Nietzsche is overall a more impressive thinker, but Feuerbach's character is unambiguously good (he's tonally more trustworthy, less of a creep and genius at the same time.) It's likely enough that Nietzsche famous as much for his faults as his virtues. That Fight Club shit is exciting. To some. For awhile.
Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities.
Both of course and of convention, you're right. How many, for example, spend quality time pondering what it means, logically speaking, to ask a question? "Oh, gee, darling. You're such a peach you are. Might I have your name?" Trying to examine this, the Merlins of philosophy advise us, leads to a dead end word game of circular reasoning. Paradox. Questioning questioning is impossible, received wisdom assures us. The circle cannot be broken.
What level-headed bloke pursues this path when, instead, he could be sipping a cold beer and making time at the local bar? What right-thinking acer fancies word puzzles over collecting a few bucks at the race track? Even the puttering gardener who raises a few championship blooms has a leg up on would-be pundits entangled in thought puzzles.
No astute person can ignore the curse extending from Socrates to Nietzsche and, presumably, beyond.
I won't quibble with the obvious. The hardest thing for us to do, albeit the most natural thing for us to do, is be ourselves. Personal integrity - Darn it! - entails thinking your own thoughts and pursuing them into action as far as time and circumstances allow. But that's adventure. Well! Who's up for that? I ask, why strike out on personal adventure when, living in civil society, the only popular wisdom is that of the conventional variety?
Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? I ask because you say being yourself is easy.
Quoting baker
Let me modify the above quote.
The modified quote is what I think.
To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual. For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.
The second part of your statement is good because it recognizes the limitations of individuality while valuing the collective wisdom of cultures and societies.
Yet this is what some people are.
You seem to think that only that which is _not_ somehow related to proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries gets to pass for "individuality".
I think that's an absurd standard.
Sure, when the goal is set so high.
What do you think the self consists of?
For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12322/felice-by-180-proof
It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out?
The guy's in love with the woman, but he thinks she had a fling with him on the rebound from her broken relationship with the father of Felice. Should he press his case for a love relationship between them? Should he respect her independence? Should he continue to protect his own self-respecting independence, rejecting his impulse to plea for her company? Who can answer these questions?
The intensity of the woman's rejection of the man's sympathy for her loss of Felice is telling. It suggests that much of what happened stemming from the one-night stand (?) that produced Felice is unresolved within the woman, including her feelings for the man.
We don't know if the woman is the type who could abort a child, but it might be the case that she bore Felice in part due to emotional attachment to her father.
This is a whirlpool of complicated emotions rubbing against each other intra-personally, inter-personally & also, the tectonic plates of emotion rubbing against those of underlying values & beliefs, again both intra & inter personally. Whew!
As per the above, I make my case, through this fictional story, to the effect that human individuals oftentimes are animated morasses of complications of complications.
As you can see from this argument, human individuality isn't simply about singularity, but also about the personal, the inter-personal, the social and even the cosmic.
By social convention, western philosophy is a punching bag for wits, with the public following suit. However, when philosophy is good, and written in the plain language of the common people, everybody listens because, underneath all of the pragmatical posturing, everybody holds interest in the big questions.
These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. How I, the individual, fit into the cosmos swirling around me is a lifelong journey without easy, formulaic answers.
It's still not clear what those standards are.
What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense.
Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.
Not sure where this is going ...
I don't have much time for the forums. I don't even turn on the computer every day. I keep up via smart phone, but posting from that is too tedious. I think about the topics while washing the dishes or working in the garden, and think of the most concise way to address a point.
Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word.
I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.
Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation
Quoting ucarr
I don't consider them to be "enemies of individuality" at all. One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation.
I exist, you exist, others exist, that's not a problem.
As I understand you, you're claiming a, b, & c cannot make concerted attacks upon the individual's power to choose freely unless individuality is understood superficially & characterized as weak.
Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c.
By not regarding as self that which is subject to change.
Is it correct to characterize you as being conservative?
The things that change about a person are not the self. The skin is not the self, the muscles, the skeleton, the body fat are not the self, the name is not the self, the clothes are not the self, the ideas the person entertains are not the self, the money the person posesses is not the self, etc. etc.
The people who consider themselves conservatives typically do not consider me conservative.
Of what does the self consist?
No.
That's what I've been asking you, since you're the one who brought it up.
I'm saying what the self can't possibly be. A triangle cannot be a circle. Identity is something which, by definition, has to be stable, permanent, or it isn't identity.
Do you discover what's extant by determining what cannot be eliminated?
No.
In some cases, yes. Selfhood is one such example.
Quoting baker
Quoting ucarr