Any thoughts?
lol.
Dave says: “Any thoughts?”
N then it’s dead silant @ ILP.
That, was great!
Okay, let me explain something to you:
When your brain commands and controls your body parts, your body parts are “slaves”, they are not “free”.
Really, “slavery” and “freedom” don’t exist, but there are different methods of control. Liberal vs tyranical.
If people can’t control themselves, then they should be controlled by someone or something else, so that they do not destroy us all.
Overpopulation is arguably the biggest problem that humanity has, but we think desease and war are our main problems on earth? Really, the pro-life arguments make the problem look like the solution! It’s ****ed!
But before the eco-system-colapses it’s most likely supertech will arise, and this has slight chances of being enough to “save the world”, though it will definately “save” and alter part of the species.
Etc.
The question is… free to do what?
There is no freedom in the absolute sense.
Sometimes the only way to be “free” (to maximize your personal liberties) is by enslaving others.
What happens when you get alot of slaves? The more you have, the more you outnumber yourself. When you get out of line, the dragon you have been feeding, starts looking at you with hungry eyes.
Surrounding yourself with slaves, can be a bad thing IMO.
Especially if they are so miserable, they no longer care much about living.
Strange paradox?
This was discussed at length in “Lordship and Bondage” in Phenomenology of Spirit.
The master becomes lazy and through work the slaves become more intelligent and stronger and overthrow the master; once they have overcome the fear instilled in them in the origional “fight to the death for recognition.”
Since giving up vegitarianism, I have given up on all of morality, and have decided to celebrate cruelty-- except when I feel irrationally compelled to hug a donkey or some such thing. Therefore, my advice to you, dear David, is to enjoy all the slaves you want. But don’t discuss it in public, lest you be condemned, as the large bulk of masses still imagine that their hypocritical lives of covetousness and sadism are moral, and not only do they preach it, but they defend viciously what they non sequiturly preach.
Who wrote that book? I would like to investigate it further.
Thanks Georgias!
Who wrote that book?!
Hegel of course!
You can read “Lordship and Bondage” here: marxists.org/reference/archi … h/phba.htm
Continue to the next chapter “The Unhappy Consciousness,” it’s great too.
Enjoy.
Thanks for the link!
What if the master doesn’t become lazy? You state this as a given.
Also, why would the “slaves” become smarter through work (their daily toil)? If their work is mindless, like standing on an assembly line, I would think they would become dumber and dumber. The masters on the other hand practice the fine art of control which depends on social science and philosophy. And since practice makes “perfect”, each would become better at what they practice. Further, slaves don’t have time to pursue knowledge and education while the elites have plenty time for the pursuit of higher knowledge. Therefore, on these two grounds, I utterly reject you premise.
And is it “strong” or “weak” to “give up” on a “morality” that was not “easy” and required taxing amounts of “ability”?
Correct, but let’s talk about the pros of liberalism and modern social structures vs ancient social structures.
And on a farther note to the metaphysical nonsense:
How does “having” more “slaves” “help” “someone” be more “free”?
Wasn’t his hunger for the pleasure and satisfaction of slave service a form of enslavement within and upon himself, using and driving him towards a repeated pattern by means of luxuries? Tyrany and temptation, pleasure and pain–are each motivators, sensations that promote methodology and action–each “control” a person, and their “control” is hard to “ignore”–all be it–they are not “free to choose” how they “feel” and what they “enjoy”/naturally “want”.
So…?
So true freedom lies in an S.A.I. principal being applied to macrophysicalbiostructure. Premeditated, consciously directed endoevolution and autogenetic upgrade. The rewriting and adding of new instinct, sensation, reaction–the re-writing of original, natural programming.
David, if you want true freedom–ever–ever to exist or to be tasted on earth, you’d need control of your entire physical structure. Live to see the future of genetics and engineering, live long–and you may be one of the few to ever experience it’s true beauty.
I concur. The original premise was that no one can be truly free because there is no freedom in the absolute sense. Your statement provides an explanation at least in part why that is so.
I propose that it is not absolute freedom that we seek in this thread due to the context of the topic but the maximization of ones liberties. “Liberties” in the traditional sense of the word.
We could of course get side tracked and quickly end the debate with abstract meditations. Do we really exist? Are we just puppets? If you guys find it agreeable… I propose that we do not take this easy path and consider the topic on a more organic ground… that is, let’s consider “free” as the maximization of ones liberties.
Perhaps, that would be part of it. I believe you are correct. However, is this a realistic expectation? How realizable is this? And would it not be actually dangerous for civilization and all goodness (goodness: the simple definition of it) to depend on it?
Let me set some supporting statements to see if I can find further agreement between us:
- Not all humans are created equal. Not in body, mind or spirit.
- Most people, despite their abilities, would like to influence their fait (the rules of society, the laws of society, decide on matters that affect them).
- Most people when given a choice would choose for their own benefit and the loss of their neighbor rather then the opposite.
- The dumb and ignorant typically comprise the overwhelming proportion of any society.
- The overwhelming proportion of any society is not too interested in devoting a lifetime of study to overcome their “limitations”, rather they would spend their life pursuing trivial personal material gains.
My propositions based on the above supporting statements
[Part I] As such, it is better for all if those with the keenest mind and a matured spirit make the rules rather than the dumb and ignorant. Most people are dumb, greedy, ignorant and vicious. As someone once said, the human soul tends to sink to the lower depths left to its own devices. Such people can never be allowed to be in control of anything that matters.
[Part II] For any chance…mind you not a guarantee… but for any chance for ‘general’ peace and good to exist on a societal level, such people need to be controlled without their knowledge. They must be manipulated and made to feel free and in control but in fact, they must be silent slaves.
Putting it all together, I’ll make the statement that there can be no freedom (maximization of liberties in society and the general good in society) without “slavery†and control. For this to change, the conditions in the supporting statements must change.
If human nature changes and we become a race of perfectly identical clones (in mind, body and spirit), the world could be different. I do wonder how we could be identical in spirit however with technological advancement…
The pros of liberalism… as with all good and bad… is a reflection of the views & beliefs of the current elites in any societal structure…past or present. Any societal structure can work to the benefit of humanity or to its detriment based on just how smart and spiritually developed the controlling elite are. Elites don’t just mean high government officials… it includes scientists, thinkers, leaders. Understanding that you can lead and control without violence (ex.the soviet system) is a very liberal concept.
[/u]
I’m just repeating Hegel. We all recall how the Spartans, the greatest keepers of slaves even, drilled and hardened themselves, though put themselves out of business while the Athenians horded up all sorts of science and culture which in the long run turned out to be more powerful weapons. Or look at what the Union did to the South.
The “premise” is also a lot of wallowing around in history, which doesn’t always produce science-style laws. One could say ‘but look at John Brown,’ or ‘look at Peregrinus,’ or ‘look at the Jannisaries,’ but it doesn’t really show anything. They’re just ideas to be enjoyed.
Protestants might tell you that if it hurts it must be good for you. But not everyone feels that way. Sometimes if it hurts, it’s the wrong thing to do. And sometimes wrong don’t mean nothing/ it don’t mean a thing. God doesn’t care if I celebrate his mercy or his cruelty; but personally it’s a lot easier to live seeing the strange beauty in God’s wicked ways than lamenting tearfully and tearing at our face over the horror the horror. How much do our transgressions really haunt us when it’s quiet? And how much of this haunting is just old stories, told to scare children?
Ah, dualism. There is no freedom without the sense of constraint.