I don't understand how
these posts do anything more than reiterate points in the OP.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I find it interesting that your interpretation of this passage is the idea that two sides looking for common ground is failure. What I get from the passage is the author trying to convey that people are so indoctrinated by their dogmatic political ideology that they fail to observe the hypocrisy evident in modern partisan politics. Nowhere in what you have quoted is the author making an appeal for people to compromise their beliefs or seek common dogmatic ground - it is simply an observation that we often get so caught up in promoting our own political viewpoints that we fail to recognize that the we are making distinctions for the same condition based on our political ideologies. We see a character attribute as negative if the person holds a different political view yet the same attribute is considered positive or virtuous in someone that holds like views. Perhaps you are trying to make the point that compromising your political beliefs for the sake of reaching ideological common ground does a disservice to the respective ideologies, but you've used a piss-poor example to make your point.
I am not trying to say that at all. I am using the quote for a purpose completely different but not unrelated to what the author was using it for.
If people are formed into an ideological mold there is no evidence to suggest they are going to be or even can be re-shaped into something different. To argue against the opposition using lines of thought from your own ideology is to ask them to suddenly stop being hypocrites. People do not disagree on a logical point, though it may seem that way at the surface. They disagree based on some fallacy by one party or much, much more likely they have differing value systems. Using logic to reconcile these basic differences is like trying to show how your leader is the
true competent, moral leader compared to the enemy's.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As far as the universal language of self-interest, I find that an interesting notion. I have the "we are in it for the species" mindset, where to me the universal language would be "for the horde" so-to-speak. I think the idea of self-interest as the underlying guiding thought of humanity is a somewhat weak-minded outlook on life - the idea that I should only care about myself. I tend to follow the thought that our actions at the most fundamental level aren't self serving at all - we unconsciously act in a way that favors the continuation of the species. For this reason I argue that the idea of a 'universal language of self-interest' is a purely artificial and socially driven worldview and a largely negative one to boot.
"For the horde" is the social standards mindset, perpetuate the status quo to most favor everyone as a whole, and therefore the average, and therefore yourself.
It is not a question about whether or not you only care about yourself - you
do only care about yourself, that is a fact. This idea has been grossly perverted, as the phrase that binds the vast mediocrity together into a unified society paradoxically achieves this by demonizing the phrase that dictates its existence. To look out for yourself is neither good nor bad, as physical laws are neither good nor bad. It's not even as if such a neutral view precludes some of the most liberal ends imaginable. In many instances helping someone else is ultimately what is best for yourself, either because of experience, relationships, reputation, whatever. Really, most major facets of society reflect self-interest quite directly, though the reason is always masked. Daily life ruled by the laws of mediocrity is hardly different than daily life ruled by the laws of self-interest. The difference is one leads to ease and ineffectiveness while the other leads to insight and productiveness.
Besides, what simultaneously fits the definition of "in it for the species" and self-interest in 99% of the cases better than sex?
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Why doesn't it make practical sense? Morals and ethics are meant to be guidelines, not absolute truths. They are meant to be reference points on which you base your actions, not pure statements existing in a vacuum devoid of thought and rationalism. Of course no one is 100% pure with no corruption in their life. To think otherwise or even to feel the need to explain that concept is ridiculous. The idea is to limit the corruption in the means towards the end goal. Goethe's statement is more an indictment against observers than a praise of agents of action - surely one can be a conscientious agent - the end result doesn't always justify the means, as the author seems to be suggesting.
To have fuzzy morals and ethics is to not have morals or ethics. Rules to live by are few and far between but absolute and applicable to many situations. For example "Don't kill people" is a shitty moral, "Don't abuse power (physical or otherwise) for personal gain" is better.
It's not a matter of not living life uncorrupted, it's about realistically embracing it. Corruption isn't to be limited in means or otherwise, it is an understanding of how the world works and the ability to use that knowledge to get what you want. The author obviously does not advocate any means to any ends, but the common perception that means must be as immaculate as their ends is ridiculous nonetheless.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What is the point of a peaceful society if you have to murder half the population to get there?
If you had to murder half the population to get there then what kind of society are you living in?
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I really don't get your fascination with Nietzsche nor your incessant need to regurgitate his ideas on this forum. I don't consider myself as mediocre, certainly not by the narrow definition of Nietzsche, and I certainly wouldn't qualify someone in power as automatically ubermensch. It is an interesting philosophical notion, nothing more. It's like me trying to convince people that the only reality is the one in my mind, and that you all are simply actors in the grand play of life currently showing in my mind - it's an intellectual exercise, not a worldview.
People in power aren't exceptional any more than a bum on the street is. Surely in a broad sense of the word it is true, but to conceive these people as 'breaking the mold' is as equally ridiculous as thinking that these people achieved their goals by not adhering to a moral code or confined by personal salvation. Practicality does not inherently mean that you are devoid of moral or ethical guidance. It means you recognize the most reasonable way to go about doing something. And the fact that society deems something as reasonable or not certainly weighs on peoples minds. We are a social species through and through - we need a bare minimum acceptance of society to stoke a fundamental fire of existence. The only people that may act completely outside of societal norms are sociopaths. It seems counter intuitive to Nietzsche's ideology to call a sociopath an ubermensch but that is in fact the core of what he is getting at - someone who transcends societal norms on his quest for enlightenment. That's not a good thing - the promotion of self to the detriment of humanity - and in that aspect the ends (becoming an ubermensch) certainly does not justify the means (throwing out societal guidelines and stepping on others as a way to rise to the top).
I didn't mention Nietzsche or ubermensch, and frankly they didn't cross my mind when I was writing the OP. So you can fuck right off with that shit. This is about relative morality and how to talk to those in power in their own language. Really I skipped over the idea about who/what is an ubermensch and what that means when I said "Maybe it's because of bloodline and not from natural or trained ability as we might like, but the fact is they are where they are because they have no need to conform to the overarching superego.", the quote G@lt wanted to ignore so badly as well. Why they are there is meaningless, why they choose the language they do is academic. Speaking their language is still pragmatic.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
We expect the 'elite' to conform to our idea of right and wrong not because it is the handicap we put on ourselves in our quest to fulfill our potential but because we expect at the very least an underlying kinship with people - the idea that I won't screw you over just so I get one more piece of pie than you. Selfishness is a weakness, not an admirable trait.
Awww man this is gold. We expect the elite to conform because that is the handicap we have put on ourselves, because we expect to be taken care of by society. The elite ditch this notion in favor of independence - voluntarily throwing away the safety net in exchange to be relieved of its weight. What do they get by your definition of selfishness? The title of elite.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's almost impossible to have a rational self-interest.
I dunno about you, I find it pretty easy to have the desire to eat.
Turquoise wrote:
So, ironically, rational self-interest would actually lean away from Objectivism and somewhat towards socialism.
Relates very, very closely to what I was saying, with the caveat that Objectivism is defined by rational self-interest, not by being an asshole. Self-interest only demands capitalism insofar that it is the most effective method of a group of rational people to mutually satisfy their needs (hot).
