Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 09:55 PM |
found this really interesting
"I cannot see anything but I can hear all the better. There is a guarded, malicious little rumour-mongering and whispering from every nook and cranny. I think people are telling lies; a sugary mildness clings to every sound. Lies are turning weakness into an accomplishment, no doubt about it – it’s just as you said.’ –– Go on!– ‘and impotence which doesn’t retaliate is being turned into “good-ness”; timid baseness is being turned into “humility”; submission to people one hates is being turned into “obedience” (actually towards someone who, they say, orders this submission – they call him God). Inoffensiveness of the weakling, the very cowardice with which he is richly endowed, his standing-by-the-door, his inevitable position of having to wait, are all given good names such as “patience”, also known as the virtue; not-being-able-to-take-revenge is called not-wanting-to-take-revenge, it might even be forgiveness (“for they know not what they do – but we know what they are doing!”). They are also talking about “loving your enemies” – and sweating while they do it."
so essentially it's saying that people justify their weakness and oppression by turning that weakness into virtues, in addition to strongly criticizing the Church.
traditionally, people who were rich, the aristocracy, were considered god-like and the best of society in their lavishness. but what better way to rebel against this aristocracy, or more like theocracy given that the higher classes of society used to be religious, than to disdain that lavishness and other self-interested things that the nobles supported. it was a damn good way to rebel, by basically saying that having nothing actually makes you better, and being weak and pacifist makes you "more moral."
thoughts? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 09:57 PM |
| brb, letting people know that kindness and generosity are social constructs meant to repress the masses. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 09:59 PM |
| This understanding of morality is fundamentally incorrect when one considers the Aristotelian (morality is a balance of virtuous traits, ie "bravery" is a virtue whole too much courage, "foolhardiness", and too little courage, "cowardice", are vices) or Kantian (all that is moral is done in accord with the duty ascribed by the Categorical Imperative, the moral compass of rational beings). Weakness has not become morality, but temperance certainly seems to be the case. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:10 PM |
| They're sort of the opposite: they're social constructs used by the masses to escape persecution by those higher in the food chain. @For |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:11 PM |
And what is so great about being rich?
~Virgil~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:17 PM |
looooooool
if you don't see kindness/generosity are able to be beneficial ends in and of themselves, instead seeing them as ways for the masses to "escape persecution by those higher in the food chain," you really don't understand how people work. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:18 PM |
That's the exact sentiment that the plebeian would exalt, at least according to Nietzsche. Because of their low ranking on the social hierarchy, and their continuous oppression, the peasant will claim that there is no value to being prosperous and that virtue lies in being poor, and hence lacking the economic resources that clearly better oneself, in an aim to become dominant over his or her oppressors. @Virgil |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:21 PM |
Or perhaps they simply see that material wealth is temporary, and enlightenment, either in the form of God or a form of philosophy, is eternal and brings more happiness than material wealth?
~Virgil~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:23 PM |
Kindness and generosity are normally forms of moral self-licensing; a person does things seemingly altruistically in order to either either make the person feel better about him/herself or to make others think more highly, more morally devout, than him or her.
In any case, they are not beneficial ends in and of themselves since they induce slavery to the collective, when not a form of moral self-licensing which is more justified. Actual altruism, without an ulterior motive, renders a person a slave to the betterment of the collective society rather than the individual and that which extends from the individual ego, which is evil because it hampers the potential self-interest of the individual. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:27 PM |
You say that benevolence is self-hindering, but is not total greed also? If we act only in self-interest, it is impossible to cooperate with others. Is that not more of a hindrance than being nice and gaining their favor?
~Virgil~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:28 PM |
and you believe that people cannot find true fulfillment from becoming "a slave to the betterment of the collective society?"
i'm actually shocked by how edgy you can get. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:30 PM |
What better way for the peasant to justify his lowly position in the bottom echelons of society: to claim that there is some sort of "eternal" happiness that can be attained through their weakness, with regard to believing in God, rather than rationally conclude that there is only one objective, short-lived existence. Enlightened philosophers are generally the middle-class, as in the bourgeois, and not plebes, but it's perfectly rational to assume that certain forms of philosophy that preach ascetic values, like Buddhism for example, are plebeian doctrine meant to undermine their richer oppressors.
@Virgil |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:31 PM |
people acting in self-interest alone add nothing to society.
just leaving these (wikipedia, yay!) links here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:33 PM |
| Cooperation with others, or teamwork, can be within one's self-interest and can thus be justified. Winning over others through niceness can be beneficial to one's self-interest, and hence selfish in itself despite being seemingly benevolent. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:34 PM |
| No, because you're by definition living for the betterment of other people instead of the betterment of your individual ego, and can never see your own, unmitigated potential. I'm talking about actual, true altruism here, not the selfish forms of doing good that have ulterior motives, like how celebrities donate to causes to win support. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:37 PM |
| False, I originally didn't reply to your comment because it seemed as if it were just informing of others' opinions on morality. Aristotle and Kant, although to be revered, cannot be assumed to be correct, and thus your post seems to come off as an appeal to authority, in which I'm supposed to believe that this view of morality is "fundamentally incorrect" just because some authority figures, renowned philosophers, happen to have a different viewpoint. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:39 PM |
The whole idea behind this is ridiculous. Being generous and rich are not incompatible things. You can be wealthy and be a devout Christian. You don't have to throw all of your possessions than those less off than you are.
The rich aren't even the primary topic covered in the Bible. It's sin, not wealth that Christianity speaks against.
~Virgil~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:42 PM |
'Tis hardly an appeal to authority, Sparing. I'm informing you that the Western tradition, particularly the part which stems from Aristotle, tends to treat morality as a "duty" to oneself and others or as a balance of attributes, such as courage vs foolhardiness and cowardice.
If you want to discuss what it means to be moral, I suppose we can do that. What do humans mean when they say "morality"? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:44 PM |
| Is being a devout Christian, and hence upholding beliefs that are antithetical to one's ultimate potential, not a strategical, greedy move in itself for the wealthy oppressors? The majority of the American population is Christian; thus, it makes sense for the self-interested rich to at least pretend to adhere to religious beliefs in order to win over the masses. I'd venture to say that a good portion of Congress, for example, although preaching religious values, are far from saints in the real world but espouse those beliefs for selfish, justified reasons. @Virgil |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:44 PM |
so acting to the benefit of society is automatically selfish because one benefits from it?
as game theory is able to clearly demonstrate, acting in self-interest often leads to a worse outcome. self-interest is inherently detrimental both to society and to oneself. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:46 PM |
You did not answer my question, and thus I will not answer yours.
~Virgil~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:47 PM |
| Also, the rich are not beyond being susceptible to delusion and ignorance by any means. @Virgil |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sparing
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4254 |
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:50 PM |
Wow, it's kind of hard to keep up with the replies.
I answered it perhaps subtly, rather than explicitly. I was saying earlier that total greed can actually include things like niceness and cooperation when it best interests the individual. @Virgil
@False When humans say "morality," they're simply talking about their beliefs on right from wrong, good versus evil. Except most humans have fundamentally flawed beliefs on morality, at least in my opinion, in which they confuse selfishly bettering oneself rather than the collective society as something to be condemned rather than exalted. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:52 PM |
| Would you say, from your definition, that morality is related to prudence in some fashion? For if morality refers to what we should and should not do, surely wisdom/prudence would help us distinguish between the two. Is this correct? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Apr 2015 10:53 PM |
| I'd like to add in something as well to this argument. It's the inherent hypocrisy of becoming "kind" and "generous". People learn these traits because they are told they will "lead to the happiest life possible". As you said yourself FTS you say "beneficial to their own ends". Does this not imply that most of the time when one is being kind they are being inherently selfish? People don't become kind because they think it will hurt themselves in the long run. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|