5 ms·

> we select for what we think is right as a social collective/organism. This is simply not true. Our values are something the elites ( not all necessarily but

> we select for what we think is right as a social collective/organism. This is simply not true. Our values are something the elites ( not all necessarily but enough ) bestow or force upon us with either carrots or sticks. Look at any cultural, social, legal, etc values in society. It wasn't the "collective" that decided it, it was the few elites who convinced us to believe in it. Like Moses coming down the mountain with those tablets, we are told what is right or wrong, we don't decide it.

idclip 7y ago
Their behavior is part of the organism. Each part of society is trying to maximize for its own good. I dont define good and i dont even try .. what is right is an amoral thing and what is right is simply what is selected for over time, thats actually biological, you seem to maybe want to ethically justify it on a personal level, but thats irrelevant, as an individual, you are a spec, wood to a fire. You can only do you, to the best of your abilities. You may wish for the universe to care, and thats a soft sentiment. The closest youre getting here is maybe this conversation, and the attitudes of those who know and love you.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > Each part of society is trying to maximize for its own good. No. Only the elites are even capable of reasoning about their own good nevermind trying to maximize it. The vast lower class are incapable of even formulating a concept of "their own good". As orwell so cleverly put it, the proles are pretty much animals, they aren't able to organize and think about their own "good" no more than livestock in an industrial farm are able to think about their own good. If the proles were capable of maximizing their own good, they wouldn't be proles, they would be the elites. "As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.'" --1984 > I dont define good and i dont even try Neither have I.
  - idclip 7y ago
    Its a difference of belief, and if i may, you sound a little bit depressed and nihilistic. Maybe you need to realize your own agency in the story. You are a part of that machine too. Id recommend jordan peterson and his take on hierarchy, its very eye opening.
    - elfexec 7y ago
      > Its a difference of belief It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of history and society. The proles don't have the capacity to do what you claim they can. Individually, a clever prole can rise up, but not collectively. > and if i may, you sound a little bit depressed and nihilistic. I'm neither. You might be projecting. Maybe a few more peterson videos that you will misunderstand/misinterpret will cure you? > Maybe you need to realize your own agency in the story. You are a part of that machine too. You seem to think I am part of the proles. I'm certainly not. > Id recommend jordan peterson and his take on hierarchy, its very eye opening. Nothing jordan peterson has stated is new. His take of hierarchy isn't his. It's been around a long time, even before peterson was born. But I agree that many could learn a thing or two from peterson. Unfortunately, it looks like some aren't able to understand him. Anyways, if you provided any evidence to your claim, maybe this discussion would have been worth it, but I can see it's simply a misguided belief, so I'll leave you to it.
      - idclip 7y ago
        Well i certainly see your sarcasm and negative attitude to my argument, which is Ofcourse not pleasant - i agree with ending this, and i wish you nothing but good things, have a great day man
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Think about the world for the past two thousand years, without mass media, with a state-controlled religion, with vast majority of the population poor and illiterate. They , realistically, could not take part in the process.
  - idclip 7y ago
    Well i see how you're categorizing into rich and poor, but i see a continuum. The rich were poor before they became rich. Social media, religion, government, even your own thinking, and mine, its all nature and happening. Also if you would entertain me, try and think about the actual relevance of someone like those rich people you are speaking about, and embed that into the universe’s timeline. I think the amount of importance and significance given to this group of people is absurd. Elon Musk isnt some Rothchild, niether is Bill gates, or warren buffet. The rich are a by product of their environment as it is embedded in time and space. The rich are just one element of the machinery which includes the poor, just like your body has different parts tasked to do different things, people of different temperaments will grow to be a certain thing, and even expand in time as families, maybe dynasties, which histories has seen rise and fall like the waves of a an ocean ebb and flow. What saddens a bit is thinking maybe you don't see your own potential, may i ask where you see yourself? Rich, poor? Powerful, powerless?
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      I am talking about a medieval society, where majority of the population were peasants or serfs, and the nobility had their status enshrined in law. This is not an ambiguous situation. In Russia a kilo of honey was worth more than a serf, so was a good horse.

idclip 7y ago

Their behavior is part of the organism. Each part of society is trying to maximize for its own good. I dont define good and i dont even try .. what is right is an amoral thing and what is right is simply what is selected for over time, thats actually biological, you seem to maybe want to ethically justify it on a personal level, but thats irrelevant, as an individual, you are a spec, wood to a fire. You can only do you, to the best of your abilities. You may wish for the universe to care, and thats a soft sentiment. The closest youre getting here is maybe this conversation, and the attitudes of those who know and love you.

elfexec 7y ago
> Each part of society is trying to maximize for its own good. No. Only the elites are even capable of reasoning about their own good nevermind trying to maximize it. The vast lower class are incapable of even formulating a concept of "their own good". As orwell so cleverly put it, the proles are pretty much animals, they aren't able to organize and think about their own "good" no more than livestock in an industrial farm are able to think about their own good. If the proles were capable of maximizing their own good, they wouldn't be proles, they would be the elites. "As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.'" --1984 > I dont define good and i dont even try Neither have I.
- idclip 7y ago
  Its a difference of belief, and if i may, you sound a little bit depressed and nihilistic. Maybe you need to realize your own agency in the story. You are a part of that machine too. Id recommend jordan peterson and his take on hierarchy, its very eye opening.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > Its a difference of belief It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of history and society. The proles don't have the capacity to do what you claim they can. Individually, a clever prole can rise up, but not collectively. > and if i may, you sound a little bit depressed and nihilistic. I'm neither. You might be projecting. Maybe a few more peterson videos that you will misunderstand/misinterpret will cure you? > Maybe you need to realize your own agency in the story. You are a part of that machine too. You seem to think I am part of the proles. I'm certainly not. > Id recommend jordan peterson and his take on hierarchy, its very eye opening. Nothing jordan peterson has stated is new. His take of hierarchy isn't his. It's been around a long time, even before peterson was born. But I agree that many could learn a thing or two from peterson. Unfortunately, it looks like some aren't able to understand him. Anyways, if you provided any evidence to your claim, maybe this discussion would have been worth it, but I can see it's simply a misguided belief, so I'll leave you to it.
    - idclip 7y ago
      Well i certainly see your sarcasm and negative attitude to my argument, which is Ofcourse not pleasant - i agree with ending this, and i wish you nothing but good things, have a great day man
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Think about the world for the past two thousand years, without mass media, with a state-controlled religion, with vast majority of the population poor and illiterate. They , realistically, could not take part in the process.
- idclip 7y ago
  Well i see how you're categorizing into rich and poor, but i see a continuum. The rich were poor before they became rich. Social media, religion, government, even your own thinking, and mine, its all nature and happening. Also if you would entertain me, try and think about the actual relevance of someone like those rich people you are speaking about, and embed that into the universe’s timeline. I think the amount of importance and significance given to this group of people is absurd. Elon Musk isnt some Rothchild, niether is Bill gates, or warren buffet. The rich are a by product of their environment as it is embedded in time and space. The rich are just one element of the machinery which includes the poor, just like your body has different parts tasked to do different things, people of different temperaments will grow to be a certain thing, and even expand in time as families, maybe dynasties, which histories has seen rise and fall like the waves of a an ocean ebb and flow. What saddens a bit is thinking maybe you don't see your own potential, may i ask where you see yourself? Rich, poor? Powerful, powerless?
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I am talking about a medieval society, where majority of the population were peasants or serfs, and the nobility had their status enshrined in law. This is not an ambiguous situation. In Russia a kilo of honey was worth more than a serf, so was a good horse.