Couldn’t you also say that co-operating is a sign of sophistication?
Consider that there are many goals that one can achieve by one’s self, and yet, still decide to co-operate with others to achieve the very same goal. Novelty, or finding new methods (e.g. co-operation) to achieve an objective is a sign of a stronger imagination.
There will be many benefits to such an action (e.g. increased efficiency, speed etc.), and there may also be disadvantages (e.g. loss of a certain function due to dispersal of functions) depending on how the group re-orientate themselves toward the same goal, for example, they could very well recognize the disadvantages of co-operation, such as the one stated, and respond to it, by, say, maintaining potential for individual function. It depends on their mentality, on how valuable they believe such an action would be, if it’s even worth it under the context of other needs.
So, you could say that, co-operation could lead to weakness, rather than being a sign of weakness.
Perhaps, you mean that, co-operation is a sign of weakness, in the case that, goals that were previously being met w/o the need of co-operation, can later, only be met with co-operation.
Anyway, why should the potentials or strengths of the so called ‘weaker’ animals necessarily be recognized as weakness?
Couldn’t we imagine, a group of top predators beginning to co-operate, ultimately increasing their chances of survival, to be a superior type?
Couldn’t you say that, an anti-social wolf, is an inferior type of wolf, being unable to communicate and co-ordinate with others, compared to the social type?
Isn’t our very biological make up, a product of constant co-operation (think of bacteria)?
Is it even possible for anything not to co-operate?
Why should co-operation be a measure of strength or weakness?
Couldn’t that just have happened, not due to weakness, but due to particular circumstances, due to randomness, and given potentials?
Is nature (or at-least life) then being directed by a sort of eternal compensation for weakness, where weakness is measured on the basis of ‘not being able to deal with the environment adequately’?
Is weakness what drives change, is it the root of change?
What possible state could an organism have been in which would initiate the process of forming a brain?
If it really needed a brain due to a weakness, wouldn’t it have been destroyed within that phase of time where it required one and when it developed one?
Just got to this post, not planning on reading more tonight, apologies if anything has already been covered:
Yeah, basically, it seems arbitrary to say that powerful bodies are a strength, while social co-operation is a weakness, when they are both strengths in regard to fulfilling their needs, or to survival. Still, it’s kinda weird to say that they developed big bodies to compensate for a lack of an ability to co-operate… The lack of an ability to co-operate wasn’t even a factor before the process of developing big bodies was happening. It’s just a totally random connection, or, a random justification to attempt to explain why big bodies came into being (I doubt it is because a compensation was being made for being socially deficient).
Do autistic children develop into hulks over time? I am pretty sure, or at-least I hope that you were giving a random association to explain an idea.
It’s kinda like saying, certain potentials are being realized by realizing that certain potentials are foreign to it / are outside of its scope, but that’s impossible. What, is some-thing, somehow, realizing that it possesses a weakness or a lack in a long run, so it (whatever it is, I guess it’s the body) must compensate by focusing on what it somehow perceived as the most adequate response? Is that what’s really going on?
Otherwise, that certain potentials are being realized because of certain pressures, which is sensible, but what isn’t, is saying that, they are coming into being due to a lack… Nothing can come out of a lack.
Almost making it sound as if lacking is an advantage in a weird way. A condition that leads to other things - which it can’t!!! As if some characteristic is the reason for the lack of some other characteristic! Am I getting this wrong?
In a sense, lacking this or that is an aspect to what something is. Everything lacks to be what it is. If it lacked less of something it would change. If it did not lack, it would be maximally concentrated space. Take the “100% cotton” shirt I am wearing, it lacks polyester and a billion other things. That lack is causing it to be what it is, which opens it up to limited possibilities, at a particular point in time. It is what it is and what it isn’t which defines what it can and can’t be.
There is no compensation based on ‘what it isn’t’. There can’t be. At-least, not if it’s a lion.
“Forced” ?? that is a rather odd term to use.
What is existing in reality is spontaneous emergence and interaction.
Note in the first place the concept of ‘subject’ and ‘object’ and their dichotomy is created by humans, the mother-of-all-subjects.
Thus whatever is projected from this mother-of-all-subjects has to be subjective at the meta-subjective level, and that is applicable even to the ‘object’ which is grounded on subjectivity. My point is, whatever is objective is ultimately meta-subjectivity or inter-subjectivity.
Btw, I suggested you try to understand the central philosophical issues underlying ‘philosophical objectivity,’ ‘philosophical realism’ and its many associated issues like the impossible Correspondence Theory of Truth, Meno’s Paradox and many other.
Unless you can clear a path through the above maze, your hypothesis of objectivity [OP] would be groundless and baseless.
As stated above the dichotomy of ‘subject’ versus ‘object’ is created by one type of subjects, i.e. the human mind.
Thus all objects can be subject in a subject-predicate scenario.
A 'subjective World" is a more realistic description of reality than ‘an objective world.’
‘Subjective’ in this sense is ‘mother-of-all-subject,’ i.e. human beings.
What is most real and certain [say 99%] is one’s ultimate self, i.e. the subject.
Surely “you” are not going to deny that?
From experiences and inferences one [the subject] conclude other human beings are also real subject as one self. [say 90% certainty].
From the base of one self one experience the existence of the world of objects.
Now you claim this word is objective and independent of your self and other subjects.
How can you know for certain the world you experience is real and independent from you and other subjects?
From philosophical history this concept of an external independent world, as Kant stated has failed and not tenable. The existence of an external independent objective world faces tons of counter-arguments.
This is why Kant proposed humanity view knowledge and experience of real reality from the perspective of the real self, i.e. the subject and inter-subjects.
Are there good reasons for you to undermine your own real self in co-operation [naturally] with other selves [subject] to enable an emergence of a reality where the subject is a part of that reality? [see ‘noted’ the point above]
As I had argued the most ‘real’ is one self [subject] and also the selves of other subjects.
You cannot throw away human standards just because humans are fallible. Note how Science has progressed to unfold more and more of a realistic inevitable human-conditioned reality. Humans had also progressed in many fields of philosophy and other fields of knowledge.
Yes, I agree with that, though it might sound strange and counter-intuitive or even straight up illogical. But I’ve had the same idea and it makes sense. I guess it is because the element of cooperation adds that extra something which makes the whole greater than just the sum of its parts would be. But I also think it takes away something as well, so in the end it is balanced… Let me explain what I mean.
The example I had in mind was 2 groups of 10 people.
[/quote]
I understand your 2nd group are like self-sufficient plot-owners who do not co-operate with others. In the event of some local catastrophe then all those specialists in the city will die. Your example is too simplistic.
We need to take the example to the ultimate.
What if in the future there is a 50 mile diameter meteor coming straight at Earth and will shatter Earth or there will other global and galactic threats. These threats are possible, in this case the co-operation of all specialists will prevails and “optimal” in the ultimate sense.
Yes, mathematicians do not often debate whether the laws of nature ought to be something else instead. This is because mathematicians are not interested in that category of questions.
But what mathematicians do is 1) they use highly abstract language to model reality and 2) they disagree with each other’s mathematical claims.
You appear to think that:
highly abstract language necessarily indicates lack of connection to reality
disagreement between people necessarily indicates there is no objective truth
Both of these are, of course, wrong.
The question this thread posits is whether certain categories of observations – perhaps even whether all categories of observations – are objective, reflecting external reality rather than one’s personal preferences, or subjective, reflecting one’s personal preferences rather than external reality.
This question is answered not by resolving disagreements but by inspecting the ground upon which our observations are based on.
What you are doing here – what you’ve been doing on this forum for a very long time – is moving the goalpost.
You are trying to distract us from our object of perception (the nature of the faculty we use to make certain category of observations) by insisting that we should pay attention to an irrelevant object of perception (the source of disagreement between people regarding certain category of observations.)
You want us to think that our question can only be answered by dealing with disagreements. The truth is that our question cannot be answered by dealing with disagreements. It can only be answered by inspecting the nature of our perceptual organs.
Indeed, you want to make us think that if we cannot resolve disagreements that our observations are necessarily subjective.
Disagreement does not mean that there is no objective truth. It can mean that some, most or even all people are not using an objective faculty of perception but are merely relying on their personal preferences. In those cases that everyone is using an objective faculty of perception, it may simply indicate a difference in the quantity of information that is processed (as in the case of dichromats and trichromats.)
Similarly, agreement does not mean that the popular opinion is true. It may simply indicate shared personal preferences.
Pandora, you can’t be serious with regards to believing that a tribe without legs is more likely, all other factors equal, to develop advanced technology than a tribe with normal, healthy legs? As I said, they couldn’t even build the kind of system necessary to even start developing such technology. I gave such an extreme example to illustrate my point precisely because it cannot really be rationally argued against. Whatever humans have done so far, they have done with healthy legs. That only supports my point. If you were correct, self-handicapping tribes who cut their own legs would be dominating the world. But they don’t.
Anyway, not interested in arguing that anymore.
As for the rest, I mostly agree with you.
That’s not what I’m saying. My point is just that technology is about trade-offs, and that so in this sense there is no absolute progress, but you advance the society in one aspect, but detract from it in another. For example, and I’m sure you’re aware of this, medicines may help people survive, but they help those who would naturally die off, this reduces the quality of the group while increasing quantity. As you said, technology has to build on itself. It can’t do that infinitely, because neither the resources and space of this planet, nor the human capacity for designing technology, is infinite.
In every society, there are actions which push it forward (hard work, productivity, creativity), and actions which pull it backwards (parasitism such as welfare). How much a society advances, or if it advances at all, depends on which actions are predominant and to what extent. My ideal is a society where all incentives are provided for the actions which push it forward, while actions which pull it backwards are punished. Then again, it is only natural that success will breed comfort and safety, and comfort and safety breed weakness and parasitism. So my ideal is probably impossible to be realized.
But I think you are aware of the shortcomings of technology yourself, as you indicated with your super bug example and by pointing out how technologies constantly have to build on one another.
I answered that question in my OP. One ought to live in a manner that promotes their survival. Since we can objectively determine that some things promote our survival better than others (for example, not cutting off your head promotes your survival better than cutting off your head) it is an objectively superior course of action for you to not cut off your head. Whereas for me, it might be preferable that you do cut off your head because I might consider you an annoying retard and I would rather not be pestered by you. Yes, this results in conflict. And no, I never claimed these conflicts can be resolved with words. Conflicts are resolved with action (fight, battle, war).
Yes, forced. We don’t have a choice but to exist in reality and be in constant interaction with the world. Well, aside from killing ourselves.
Yes, the ideas of subject and object and their dichotomy, as well as all other ideas, were created by humans. The subjects and objects themselves (the external referents these words denote) were NOT created by humans, however. The objective world existed long before humans did, and other subjects existed before humans existed as well.
If you use different definitions of “object” and “subject” then yea, but as I said, it’s not about words themselves, but about what is denoted by them.
Huh? The world would then simultaneously be a mother and a murderer of all human beings, if you wish to anthropomorphize it (which I see no reason to do) in order to view it more like a subject. But since the world is not a subject and not actually a mother or a murderer, I don’t see why you would want to do that aside from artistic expression or clever attempts at sneaking your religion and God into the discussion.
An animal isn’t even aware it is a subject. The thing that would be most real to a dog is the external world. And for extroverted people, I presume the same would apply - what is most evident to them is the external, because that is what they are focused upon. Philosophers tend to be introverts and so focused on the internal rather than the external, and so they think that because their own subjectivity is most evident to them themselves, that the same would apply to everybody and everything else, when it really doesn’t. What is most evident and certain depends on what the subject is focused upon, aka, it depends on the nature of a subject.
I already had a discussion almost identical to this… if you want to know my position on that, most of it is written here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=189652
If something is unclear or unanswered, you can of course ask me.
I agree, moreover, I think it is impossible to have people live in awareness of one another without interacting in some way, be it friendly (cooperation) or hostile (waging war), so the 2nd group is a fantasy group, really.
Actually, in the primal state since 6 millions years ago, humans are ‘forced’ to perceive an ‘external’ world to facilitate their survival. This is merely an evolutionary default for survival sake that was efficient relative to time and conditions. Even now the majority of humans are still stuck with that inherent primal default.
The concept of “out there” versus “my self” was and is a critical necessity to ensure survival at the crudest level. The concept of ‘out there’ [an independent external world] provide an efficient [relative to the primal self] for the person to seek food outside and be aware of physical threats from outside.
Humans then did not think [had not evolved] of threats from within themselves, i.e. stress, madness, a heart attack, and any thing from within the self because it is always food, opposite-sex and threats are always from ‘out there’ that take priority. Thus humans evolved with a focus with the constant awareness of ‘out there’ from my physical self. The sense organs are programmed and tuned in the direction of ‘out there’ most of the time. This default has existed since then and at the present with the concept of ‘an independent external world’.
This food, opposite-sex, threat ‘out there’ emerged 3+ billions years ago in single-cell living things and has evolved since and is embedded in the DNA of humans. This is why the concept of an independent external world of objects is a default for the majority of human beings [and philosophers].
That is why Kant started his ‘Copernican Revolution’ because humans has failed [philosophically] to understand reality against various dilemma. Kant proposed we view reality as an interdependent open system where it is the subject that determine the objects and not the other-way round.
Actually the Buddhists did that sort of thinking 2500 years ago and the Jains and others did it earlier to get to higher truths from the default common sense truths. This view was a search for more complex solutions to resolve the more complex threats of human[s].
The “out there” independent external world was useful from 3+ billion years ago for living things and recently for homo-sapiens.
But as human evolved mentally their awareness of food and threats changes in time. Humans are now more aware of greater threats, i.e. WMDs, global catastrophe, galactical and others that could easily wipe off the human species and other interdependent species and even threats that can smash the Earth into pieces.
In the advent of the above greater threats relative to 2,000 years ago, SOME humans has evolved progressively from the the concept of an independent external world of objects to an interdependent internal-external world that is driven the subjects.
Note your above statement is grounded on ‘before’ i.e. time and that is a human-made concept, thus subjectively driven at the very fundamental level. In this case your major premise is human-made thus your conclusion ‘The objective world existed long before humans did’ is thus subjective and so is the interdependent reality of it.
I understand it very tempting to default to an independent external world because that is a 3+ million years algorithm in your brain. The point is if you bang on this as a major premise the conclusions are not sound because you have forgotten and excluded ‘yourself’ the subject in a reality which an intricate part of that reality.
Look at it this way,
if you dip yourself in the middle of the ocean, are you really external from the ocean?
If you view that reality from a molecular microscope you will not see external_ness because the H2O molecules are in one soup with those of the supposedly human body being more concentrated.
It is the same if you are in the space [air] of the world, if you see yourself and humans from a molecular microscope there is no internal nor external dichotomy. What exist are merely clusters and bundles of molecules of different concentrations.
Thus your major premise starting with an independent external world is not a more refined truth and so will be your conclusion in theory and in reality.
Note it was others and you who agree your physical body/self [normally blinded] as an object. I am just extending this to the general subject-predicate scenario.
This anthropomorphizing is merely to denote the human subject is primary and ultimate. It is not meant to represent anything emotional like ghosts or a personal god with a white beard in the sky.
All [with some exceptions] livings things as I explained, perceive an inherent 'out there" independent external world of “objects” from their own existence, albeit in a different cognitive level from humans. Since it is “objects” the perceiver ‘in this case’ the animal is the subject. If some day they evolve like humans the animals will recognize themselves as the subjects.
It is not because Philosophers are introvert.
It is the matter of the truth of reality and wiser philosophers do understand the default external world but they like most good thinkers think “outside the box” to understand reality with greater precision and truths.
The most crudest sense of philosophical truth was based on the Correspondence Theory of Truth relating the external world and this has failed miserably. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon … y_of_truth
Nah, solipsism is experienced by mad people. It cannot be a coherent philosophical theory. Solipsism is an Incoherent Theory iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
It is a waste of time to speculate on some thing that is incoherent.
I mentioned earlier, it is because of the above possible threats and other global, planetary, galactical threats that we humans has to co-operate at the highest possible level and this is only efficient when human switch from their evolved default of 3+ billion years concept of an independent external world to the realistic concept of an interdependent internal-external world driven by subject[s] who perceives emerging-objects. Note spontaneously emerging objects not pre-existing objects.
Why the majority of humans are clinging to a 3+ billion years defaulted primal instinct is due to psychological attachments and the danger of insecurity [subliminal angst] if they think otherwise.
If by ocean you mean the enclosed area of water including everything within it that is not water – e.g. human bodies – then no, you are not outside of it. You are part of the ocean.
But if you define the ocean the way most of us does, and that is as an enclosed area of water, then you are outside of the ocean in the sense that you are not part of the ocean (though you are within it in the sense that you are within its boundaries.)
Of course, when you dip yourself in a large pool of water, some of that water will cease to be a part of that pool of water and become a part of your body.
This is because you are looking too closely. You have lose the big picture.
I think the argument is adaption and compensation.
There is the theory that if people have some shortcoming that they excel in other areas to compensate for it.
But what is implicitly part of this theory is that the compensation would take the form of something gainful for the individual/society.
How about somebody is short and tries to make it popular to be short via bullshitting. Or he argues that he deserves some sort of compensation because his shortness is ‘unfair’, he came to it without any fault of his own (at least he argues that way).
On the other hand, there is a good argument to be made for our hands and how they enable us to use tools well. Without which we would arguably not have invented many tools at all. Why would we? How?
Trust me: That is the only “category of questions” I am interested in exploring pertaining to objectivism.
Still, their calculations do manage to overlap enough so that engineers are able to create all of the extraordinary technologies the human species have brought into existence over the centuries. And these mathematical truths are applicable to all who either manufacture or use the technology.
No, you appear to think that I think like this.
Obviously: The overwhelming preponderence of abstract exchanges that we engage from day to day can clearly be linked in the world of either/or. After all, that’s how we go about the business of living our lives from day to day.
In the world of either/or, disagreements between people may well be resolved because the actual facts are at hand.
And even in the world of is/ought, I have argued time and again that an objective truth/reality may exist.
Instead, what I do is to ask those who argue that this is the case to cite particular examples from their own life in which conflicts with others were able to be resolved “objectively”. In other words, not just “in their head” but demonstrated such that all rational men and women were obligated to embrace their own narrative/agenda.
How about you?
As for all this…
…bring it down to earth and situate it in a particular context we would all be familiar with.
Otherwise [to me] it is just one more didactic [pedantic?] example of Satyr’s “general description” of human interaction. A world of words that basically goes around and around in circles.
In other words…
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
In many, if not in most or even all, cases, that is a strength that weakens the one using it, and in this sense, it really is a form weakness.
Most liars, beside lying to others, are also lying to themselves, and this means, they are confusing their brains.
There is a difference between someone choosing to eliminate his strengths (as in the case of them being a burden) and someone simply confusing his brain.
Wouldn’t gullibility then be a weakness too (or a sign of immaturity?) Even the so called strong is not 100% strong in all areas, and a weakness, wherever it is, can be sought out and exploited. If a weak person is trying to bullshit his way into power he’s only doing what he can for his own best interest, and if he succeeds by exploiting a weakness then who’s to blame? Would you blame a flu virus to finding its niche in your body and making you sick?
That is why I stated your philosophical views are stupid [you started it not me] and kindergartenish.
The separate oceans and their ‘boundaries’ are merely created in the mind. The world’s oceans are all an interrelated connected body of water. It is your thinking that is so kindergartenish and thus cannot see it. I have anticipated the response like your stupid view thus that is why I had extended the example to the ‘space’.
Did you read this;
I mentioned clearly, the human body is also within a soup of space.
In terms of molecules, atoms, electrons and sub-atomic quarks the human person is merely a more concentrated cluster and bundles of molecules within the soup of space extending infinitely from planet Earth to the end of the galaxy and the Universe. The elements within your supposed ‘fictitious’ human-made boundaries are moving in and out of it all the time. Neutrinos could be shooting from outerspace and some could be stuck at part of your body.
“Me” or “You” are not independent entities within the infinite universe but rather are interdependent clusters and bundles of star dust.
That is a stupid view.
My above view is from both the parts and the whole together.
It is only when one like you focus too heavily [driven psychologically] by the part [one self] that you cannot see you are an intricate part of the whole. There is no way you can ever extricate yourself-as-part-of-reality from reality. NEVER!
Now who is the stupid [lack philosophical intelligence and wisdom] one!
And you have the weakness of needing water, clean, fresh, water. So if I go to your well and poison it should you really blame me?
I’m just making more space for the strong, those wo are immune to the poison.
Everything has a weakness(es) and it’s not necessarily getting better by destroying those weaknesses.
Perhaps it’s all like a buffet where we can pick features and don’t have to sacrifice any other quality for it? - Nope.
A bullshitter who is successful with his bullshitting is still a bullshitter.
That blame talk is just another attempt at bullshitting.
My body doesn’t have to blame the flu virus to fight it off.
I notice a pattern with you trying to sell destruction of the status quo as some enhancement or benefit when it isn’t necessarily.
Evolutionary speaking, the mutation is more often than not a disadvantage and advancement of any kind is not achieved by surrendering to the chaos.
Dear body, how about you try something new today and throw the dice and change my body chemistry. Because I think it could improve my overall state of affairs. So please, try not to fight off cells which go rogue or viruses because they might introduce something beneficial to my system.
I do not advocate for the exploitation of weaknesses, I only point out that this is how things work in the world - everyone pursues their self interests, self survival. The duty of self maintenance is on the organism itself. If the organism is unable to self maintain, then who’s to blame? I just don’t buy this “superior victim” attitude that’s going around. Where are the results, because it’s the results that matter, not words or lofty ideas.
Yes, and a parasite is still a parasite that fulfills its evolutionary niche. Should we declare all parasites bad and exterminate all of them from existence because their interests don’t coincide with ours?
But it has to do something; fight off, adapt, or perish.
I am not advocating for it, I’m just trying to look at it objectively. It is very easy to adopt us vs. them attitude and take things personally, which only makes one vulnerable to exploitation. Whole nations are pitted against each other this way to someone else’s advantage.
I think it’s a little more fluid that this. Take any isolated population around the world which experiences the least number of mutations. Would you say that they are at an advantage over general world population in terms of mutations which enable survival?
Very funny, and who’s at a buffet now? Note that the human body has assimilated viruses and used them to its advantage in the past. Did the human body betray itself?
“Elde’s group showed that our immune system relies in part on genes taken from viruses that infected our ancestors thousands of years ago. These viral DNA remnants, which make up nearly 8 percent of the human genome, can serve as a circuit switch, activating nearby immunity genes when a threat such as a modern virus is detected.” pewtrusts.org/en/research-an … infections
Wasps have been able to chemically weaponized themselves by continuously assimilating viruses into their DNA. Humans are no exception, just look at the genocide of Native populations.
You say that it is me, and not you, who started “it”. I suppose that you refer to my honest observation of reality, namely, that you are evasive, arrogant and stupid.
I did start that one, but the question is, are you continuing it? Because I don’t think you are.
You are merely saying bad things about me. That’s not the same. Everything you say must also be true. It’s not enough to simply pretend.
The very fact that you have to point out to me that it is me who started it is a sign that you don’t like the fact that I started it.
I am pretty sure that if I didn’t start it myself that you wouldn’t have started it yourself.
You have no interest in honest observation of reality.
What you’re really doing then is merely trying to punish me for making you suffer by honestly observing reality.
Reality is discrete, not continuous. Continuity is a consequence of abstraction, therefore, it is in the mind.
There is only so much reality that a mind can perceive at any point in time. Therefore, it must include and exclude based on relevance. Continuity, seamlessness, identity, oneness, sameness, singularity, equality, etc is produced by the process of exclusion.
Thus, if you are not perceiving boundaries, this is only because you are not perceiving.
The more you perceive, the more what you perceive becomes different, unequal, individual, separate, disconnected, etc.
The less you perceive, the more what you perceive becomes similar, equal, holistic, united, connected etc.
Not only is “me” separate from “you” but “me” is separate from “me” at every point in time.
That’s good to know. So I guess you won’t retaliate if anybody does something to hurt you.
Or what does the word ‘blaming’ even mean to you besides being a nasty booboo.
Why else would you bring up the word blaming? All I see here is an appeal to not retaliate against the bullshitter. Or what else do you mean?
Which is fine, you can defend whatever you like but this brings me to next thing which is selling this as some kind of objectivity.
So let’s take this back to the gullible person. What are you saying here, that the gullible person should not attack the bullshitter once he has learned of the bullshitting? Because he ultimately has got himself to blame?
Let’s say you are successful and convince many people not to retaliate against bullshitters. Don’t you think you will make bullshitting very popular?
Because the consequences I see are people who will become very cynical about society overall and why not bullshit themselves since the consequences are being marginalised.
Those who retaliate are not about victimhood. On the contrary, once you have retaliated you are generally not thought of as the helpless victim anymore.
Your “Let’s not blame” attitude may sound like it’s making people less about victimhood but I think it has the very opposite effect. And what’s more, you bring it up, now repeatedly, when it’s not about blaming and whining but about realisation and retaliation which you seem to want to avoid.
Think of the parasites!
I don’t know what you do but from the perspective of the host it seems healthy to think of the parasite as something which has to be dealt with in a way. Whereby I think it’s better to cut it off with a high initial cost than nursing it and postponing the reckoning.
If you can’t, then there is this rare chance that it will have a happy ending. But that’s not something I’d consider a healthy choice. It’s what happens when you surrender to chaos. When you give up.
Objectively speaking, lol, people should not adopt an us vs. them mentality. They should all be ‘individuals’ while me and my homies act as a group with group interests.
I can see that you do understand this since we were just talking about the parasites and bullshitting and how one should blame oneself for buying into bullshit. And once we realise it has been bullshit we do nothing but feel depressed about our gullibility.
That would objectively be best, trust me.
So no groups please, somebody else might benefit from it.
Think about the greater good, larger market and all…
Tell me, how did this happen? How did a large segment of the population come to share the same mutations?
It proved to be a very beneficial mutation or it got passed on in combination with another set of mutations which proved to be very successful in conjunction with their environment?
So bottomline, they didn’t all try to catch a flu virus. Million and millions died and very few, very very few got lucky and it turned out to work out for some reason or another. And so I say we should not try to catch the flu virus.
In fact, if this accidental beneficial mutation were to be passed on with another gene, let’s call it the “I am pulling at straws here” gene and this gene makes people think that catching the flu is a good idea and they wanna catch all kinds of viruses, then it would not bode well.
You see, that healthy mutation would likely disappear because of it being combined with the ‘I wanna catch the flu’ gene.
Hence why ‘I wanna catch the flu’ is objectively speaking not a good gene in terms of survivability.
But really, who am I to tell anybody not to catch the flu. Actually, I am not. I think people, especially bullshitters, should to what they preach. But… and that’s the point - they don’t.
Yes, gullibility is a form of weakness. And yes, noone is completely strong and everyone has an area they are weak in. Doesn’t matter how strong they are in general.
Every organism seeking its own advantage will have to do whatever has to be done to maximize its chances of acquiring its own advantage. If this means weaker organisms exploiting the weaknesses of stronger organisms, then that’s what they will have to do.
Similarly, the stronger organisms will have to defend themselves against the exploitation of the weaker organisms in whatever manner they can.
What does the word “blame” mean? What it certainly implies is some sort of wrong. Wrong, on the other hand, is a word designating an action, or a set of actions, that produce more harm than good.
There are two types of harm: internally induced harm (or self-harm) and externally induced harm (or external harm.)
The weak exploiting the strong is an external harm induced by the weak on the strong.
Who’s to blame here? Certainly not the weak. It is the strong who should be blamed for not defending themselves against the harm.
The same applies to the situation of the strong successfully defending themselves against the weak. The weak, and not the strong, are to blame.
But there is also a situation in which both the offender and the offended are to blame.
This occurs when the offender, e.g. the weak, are not only harming the offended, e.g. the strong, but also themselves.
This is when blaming both yourself and others is fitting.
The hidden premise in your way of thinking is that every being is seeking its own advantage. This is not true.