The weak have strong allies: who will smash the heads in, of those who try and fuck with their peeps - others will therefore not fuck with that same weak person: for fear of suffering the same fate - it’s simple: you can’t do anything if you’re dead!
I don’t ever quote religious ethics, but you always seem to turn my response into such
Look dude, in accordance with strictest Confucian rituals, I am intoxicated but not confused. Anyway, yes Black Flag is a punk rock band and they kick ass and you should listen to them.
As for the thread, let’s go through it:
The quoted section is wrong.
a) It assumes an individualized self apart from society.
b) It assumes that human nature is bad.
.'. we can forget the quoted section because it is at least two kinds of wrong and likely more.
“Isn’t chaos the natural order of things?”
Hermeneutic reality . . . no. We make order. Check out what I’ve said about Fuzhi and Yi I (Yi Yulgok).
What does it mean to be innocent? What is innocence?
Depends on who you ask.
Does innocence exist?
Irrelevant without a definition of innocence.
Isn’t a animal state of existence desirable? why is it not desirable?
We are animals.
Are we not animals?
Redundant
Shouldn’t ones own individual satisfaction be all that matters anyways?
Define “individual”. Having defined it, show me that such a definition exists. Not prove, this is a subjective notion and I recognize that, but I still need to see the concept not only defined but verified to a certain degree.
In a world where the strong ravage the weak is that not fine evolution or nature?
We've been over this before. This is the world we are living in. Your definition of "strength" and "weakness" is merely obscured by your obsessive moralizing.
Why should the weak be protected? Can anybody give a concrete reason why the weak should be protected without discussing religious ethics?
You tell me. What you advocate has been thoroughly crushed and proven to be weak.
I don’t think that we’re animals. Animals aren’t aware of things like we are. Human beings have ideas; we change the way we see the world and adapt the world to our needs; animals don’t.
Put simply animals only evolve genetically where as human can evolove ideas…Or if you: like humans ask questions; animals don’t.
To go back to an anmial state of existence is not in our nature because we are not animals.
It may be desirable for an individual to go back to an animal existence. But clearly its not desirable for the human race to else we would have done already.
this not to say we do not have animal traits. We evoloved from animals.
Please see my previous reasoning on this one (a mutual exchange of resource: ensures that the strong protect the weak - family, friends, allies, acquaintances).
Look at yourself – your cells are constantly in the process of decay and renewal: old cells die and new ones are created. From this process something you identify as your physical self is created, but given its constantly changing nature, you certainly can’t say that the physical self is yourself.
So, you certainly lack anything that can really be viewed as a physical continuity of the self. At this point the next appeal is to talk about our mental selves, something along the lines of “I think, therefore I am.” But is that really true at all? Think about yourself five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, back in primary school, before primary school, and so on. What did you think was important? What do you know now that you didn’t know then? How much of what you knew then have you forgotten? What did you value then vs. now? Thinking about these things quickly reveals that our mentally constructed self is as fleeting as our physical self. The continuity of both is an illusion.
So, in order for the self to be a justified unit, I needs to be placed within the context of human relationships. Now, it can be argued that human relationships change as well. This is undeniably true, which is largely what is meant by the self being empty. However, our relationships change a rate that is slower than we ourselves change either physically or mentally. Think about it like what you mean when you say that you are at a particular location. The “there” that you’ve defined is a rather dubious thing, since the environment itself is constantly changing (can’t step in the same river twice) but furthermore, the land is moving through the motions of plate tectonics, while the location is on the spinning Earth, while the Earth is moving around the Sun, while the Sun is rotating around the galactic core, while the galaxy is moving through an ever-expanding and possibly infinite universe! Yet we can still say that “there” is indeed “there” because we have made it so. The self is the same way, but it existence is contingent on the perspective of others in the same way the thereness of the position is contingent upon your viewpoint. “There” cannot be “there” in-and-of-itself since there is no there to be.
Define “chaos”. As far as I am aware, the concept of “chaos” is just a human-produced categorization used to interpet and understand actual reality. So is “natural order”.
“Innocence” is generally defined as naivete and non-worldliness (whatever the general, concensus definitions of those are)
By the definition, yes. It is most likely to be found in white middle class suburbia. The people who possess it are usually goody goody Christians. Of course.
What is and is not desirable is so relative this is almost meaningless.
“Animal” is merely an abstract categorization invented by humans. Ultimately, all of what we call “life” is just an organized self-perpetuating collection of matter. But even “organized”, “collection” and “matter” are just human abstractions used by us to interpret the world as it exists.
Thus, this again is relative.
Importance is, in principle, relative. More often than not, this importance is placed on individual satisfaction, as satisfaction evolved to ensure the animal pursued survival.
“Fine” by what standards
In this context, there is no “should”. Thus, nothing “should” be. Including the inverse and converse.
Strong Lions don’t prey on weak lions. Strong Wolves don’t prey on weak wolves.
It’s kinda strange to simply use the word “animals” as if there is no difference between a rabbit and a bear.
Wild animals do live in a state of Anarchy, at least in the sense of not having government. Nor is there any reason to believe that if WE lived in a “planned” State of anarchy would we prey on each other.
But Anarchy is a “loaded” word. In civilized times, whenever there was an Anarchic situation, it was NOT planned. It was the breakdown of social norms, almost always because of war. So for example, during the Thirty Years War, civilization collapsed in Germany. People did what they had to do to survive. They stripped bodies from graves and ate them. One quarter of the population actually died.
So, the ruling groups of all the Nations of Europe decided to settle matters. Religious questions, social questions, etc. Not having the means to bring things to a decision, they simply fought to the point where their ability to bring matters to a decision broke down. The result being a complete and total social disaster.
But Anarchism as a phillosphy ASSUMES a deliberate effort, to eliminate the necessity of government. A situation in which there are enough resources to take care of all human needs.
Could it actually work? Maybe. But one thing is certain, it cannot work, unless the overwhelming majority of humanity willingly embraces the concept.
"Intrapack fighting only occurs when they are feeding, when a pecking order is established so that the highest ranking eat first. Fighting also occurs when there is tension within the pack when a member has disappeared and reappeared. If a wolf is absent from the pack for any amount of time, it is rejected from the pack; if allowed back in it has the rank of omega and is picked on constantly. "
Strange, while I don’t agree with all of that article, having my own sources , and having made my ownb observations, no where in that article could I find the following statement:
“no, they cast out the weak ones from the pack and the weak ones starve.”
Perhaps you can find it for me?
You might also be interested in this link, which is a bit more accurate, not that the link you posted is fantasy…
Or this one:
“Within the hierarchy, younger individuals are constantly trying to better their status. When a new alpha male takes charge, it occurs very rapidly. The old alpha male is still treated with respect by the other subdominants. It has been suggested that the dominance hierarchies serve to maintain order and conserve energy within the pack by reducing aggression. Basically it prevents a fight each time a wolf contests something.” cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/PPT/E … n_the_.htm
In a world where the strong ravage the weak is that not fine evolution or nature?
so quit with the religious parallels!