It’s the jungle we built inside the real jungle of which we fear outside. We love pleasure and comfort too much.
I don’t know about that. Religion is very much planned and organized.
In the very beginnings of civilization there was very little secularism. Everything was built upon religious experience or perception.
It was many religious conspirators around the world from many different religions that we find the origins of civilization.
The first forms of slavery entirely based upon caste systems everywhere.
Those caste systems evolved into the ones we still have today.
The ancient priests of yesterday could only dream of what politicians and others get away with today.
As civilization evolved religion and god was no longer needed in manipulating or enslaving the population whereas now various social philosophies, economics, or societal propaganda does the trick.
Nope. That task was left to their descendants.
They always do build upon it. That is why the establishment across the planet is an extremely hard thing to destroy or eradicate.
They essentially have 2600 plus years of experience in enslaving and controlling the population.
I see civilization has something completely different than evil and the conquest to overpower nature. This all sounds very sublime as Edmund Burke would put it. Civilization and culture fist and glove together. They help us learn the best things ever said or written. The romantics certainly weren’t out to control nature. They were out to unleash it, and expose the limitations of science to even the scales to show what is most intimate about ourselves. That we are most authentically ourselves, that we are most naturally ourselves when at play and Schiller would put it in his Aesthetic Education of Man. Take Rousseau for another example in his book Reveries of a Solitary Walker. He’s talking about nature, and that feeling within when looking at it. It’s not just about nature but also human nature. The Romantics where humanists who took inspiration from nature and they were cultured people living within the bounds of civilization.
Rousseau’s “Man born free but everywhere in chains” hints at what some are posting, but he is not proposing that we go back to a state of nature is he? These romantics aren’t out to conquer nature or others are they?
We are a predatorial species , we are a pack/herd species and then toss in sentience. The answer to your question lies in those 3 things and the common thing within is laziness. Fear of nature has zero to do with it. Convenience, ease of life, and comfort. Laziness. Religion had nothing to do with the start of civilization , nor did politics. We spend energy to build and protect private resources or desires because we want ease of life. We work together because it gives the individual time to do nothing. Predators that are pack/herd are lazy critturs.
I dont think Laziness is the core thing, for example lazy people dont cut down forests to build apartments for rich yuppies and hipsters… I dont think you can pin it down on just one character trait, humans have a variety of bad character traits. There are seven sins, not one.
Yes, but the planning is very different depending on whether you’re talking about the cult leaders or the cult followers.
For example, the plan in a particular parish may be to donate so much money to the Church by the end of the year. That plan, for the followers, is meant to get them into heaven (or if they’re really selfless, to take care of the poor and needy). The same plan for the leaders, however, may be to make themselves rich.
When I say it isn’t always planned, however, what I mean is that the reasons religion works, why it succeeds and survives, isn’t always for the reasons people think it is. To make the cult leaders rich, for example, is not part of the plan according to the followers, but it’s what makes the religion work (insofar as its survival goes) despite their obliviousness to this fact; the followers may think that the reason their religion is succeeding is because, for example, by being so selfless and compassionate to the poor and needy, God smiles upon them and rewards them by making their religion thrive. That may have been their “plan”, and it may appear to work, but that plan isn’t what actually makes it work; what actually makes it work is the fact that some of the money lining the leaders’ pockets is going back into the Church and allowing it grow. But even the leaders may have a “plan” for how to conduct their religion that isn’t really the actual reason the religion ends up working. There may not be any such plan that makes it work, not in anyone’s mind at least, and the actual reasons it works may be completely accidental.
I agree, but obviously there were secular forces at work that made religion and civilization work despite whether anybody understood those forces or not.
Exactly!
Exactly!
Exactly!
Exactly!
But on this point, there has always been the question in my mind about whether the people themselves also build upon their own experience and knowledge of dealing with those who weild power over them. I mean, to put this into perspective: the history of political power has not been as black and white as we’re insinuating. There are plenty of examples of how the people rose up and overthrew their governments, and through that they can learn how to contend for power. The history of political power is more like a battle of wills, a struggle between the people and their governments, and it waxes and wanes to a certain degree.
Granted, the dominant class is usually dominant for a reason, and this reason is usually enduring (for example, higher intelligence, wealth, bloodline (as in monarchies), etc.), but we’re always dealing with human beings dominating over other human beings. This is an important difference from the analogy to herding sheep or other livestock. There’s no way in a million years that a sheep is going to outsmart a human being, let alone gain dominance over him. But the possibility of one human being doing it to another, although perhaps less than likely, is not negligible. The relation between the dominant classes and the dominated classes is a lot more fuzzy and dynamic than that. Human populations are quite numerous and diverse, and there’s very likely to be a few among the dominated classes that are actually smarter and more capable than the majority of those in the dominant class. And this becomes especially complicated when you have societies in which the dominant and dominated classes are intermixed to a certain degree–as in so-called republics.
A lot of the lessons and methods of the dominant classes can be observes and learnt by members of the dominated classes, and the latter can always understand the principles upon which those lessons and methods work by observing how it happens to themselves. For example, fear mongering: the slave often knows that he obeys his master because of the fear the master deliberately instills upon him, and he will use those same tactics if ever he gets free from his master and enslaves someone else–this is often the reason why the cycle of violence within families is so perpetual–the abused child ends up being the abusive parent because he knows that’s what work on him. The same applies to entire populations being ruled over or abused by a dominant class.
And on top of all that, there is often competition between dominant classes themselves. The Republican party vs. the Democratic party, for example. Or the American government vs. the government of North Korea. Would it not be in the best interest of the North Korean government to infiltrate the American population and supply the means by which they can overthrow their own government? Usually, members of the dominant class don’t like to share power, not even with each other, so whereas in the short term, they may cooperating amongst themselves in order to maintain their domination over the population, they will never be so cohesive as to completely ignore any opportunity to take power even over members of their own group.
Anyway, UglyGirl asked a whole bunch of weird questions in her OP. So far, we’ve been lingering on:
She also wants to know:
I think we’ve answered this to a certain degree.
On top of that, she also said:
The obvious typo notwithstanding (or was it on purpose), what does this mean? Why does Ugly see civilization as the cister? And why primitivism as the brother?
Ugly, do you see yourself as the sister, on the side of civilization?
What do you mean, privacy, who gets what? How does one imagine primitivism wanting to keep things private from civilization? Or visa-versa? And what about inheritance? Inheritance from whom?
I mean, your thoughts make sense in the context of siblings who are literally brother and sister, but how does this make sense out of primitivism and civilization?
Those that cut down trees are not the ones to make the trees into lumber , those that make lumber are not the ones to frame a house etc etc.
A group/town/city has people each doing tasks to make all lives easier. We no longer live in huts or cabins built by one. Or most do not. There are those intrepid souls that do build everything on their own for themselves. They are rare.
Predatorial creatures are inherently lazy, they kill the easiest not the best. The pack each has assigned places when hunting to make the hunt easier and quicker. Humans go past just hunting we assign jobs and tasks or find the person that has the talent. All in order to make life easier so that there is relaxation and time to do nothing. That is a lazy creature. It is not sinful it is smart. It provides for a better life, easier life. It is why civilization began. Laziness is easier then working your ass off.
One of my old friends said that fear and laziness were the two things that drove all other acts in humanity.
He also said how greatness is not actually so great.
I lost contact, maybe he’s dead by now.
Looks like a one-size fits all idea.
All the humans want the same thing?
No all humans do not want the same things other than the basics. Basics are roof, food , drink and maybe transportation. If we all wanted the same things there would be very limited stores, or other commercial endeavors.
What exactly do you mean by “drink” Kris? 
I look at civilization through the eyes of power in that there were various motifs and motivations for starting human civilization just as there are particular motifs for the endgame of civilization’s future as well.
I also do believe that human civilization by and large is a grand conspiracy. I know how that sounds at first but I can rationalize that point very well.
As for Rousseau, he was a spoiled wealthy naive utopian Parisian that lived in a Château. That’s not to say I hate him as a philosopher in that some of his stuff was alright but a majority of his views concerning human nature are naive.
In some ways based off entirely of Christian and religious mythologies.
She was thinking of a six pack of beer. Civilization fundamentals don’t you know.
I am going to have to respond to your much larger post later in the day.
Well technically, water, milk ,perhaps tea or coffee. Parents may need that nightly touch of booze.
Fear of nature does have something to do with it… If we did not fear Nature, religion would have never been invented…
Fear of death more than nature would be how medicine/priests got started. From healing came the realization of a specific power over tribes. Egos took healing into the realm of religion.
Death is a natural process therefore nature.
Nature is far more than just death. Fear of nature includes all of nature.
How can that be? No animal fears all of nature. Indeed, some of the best things in life come from nature: food, water, warm sunny weather, even friends and family and sexual partners. Nature has both extremes–everything we fear and everything we lust after.
Nods What he said.