Civility is a mere facade, indoctrinated within us from birth we aspire for greatness. The imagination is a powerful thing and I suspect that a rather successful implementation of imagination in the ideological push of civility - which is not necessarily a bad thing and has many wonderful aspirations to offer. However, it has its extremes. We can often end up forgetting who or what we are. I credit the extreme notions of this ideology to have end up in various forms of political correctness. It is often that any of us can be disillusioned about anything and I’ve noticed some various politically correct stances that weave a web of twisted logic pushing the envelope to a disillusioned frame of reference. The simple scientific categorization that places us as not animals, for instance. It seems this occurred, well, just because “we” can.
Today we see extremes in various forms of political activism; political correctness in all its forms; PETA, pipe dream superfluous goals that will never be obtained; The paradoxical push for racial equality which ends up segregating the races and hurts its own cause; Trading some small victory while creating a larger war in the end. Censorship while has its practicality and legitimate concerns that there is a fine line that we must not damage. To deny some aspects our savagery on these levels can lead to systematic corruption resulting in a slippery slope of self defeat. Authority shall always need a reminder that their unjust facade of civility is transparent and their savagery is apparent. We should not necessarily expect more from the epitome of human civility; systems, governments, corporations, cultures, everything. It will only set us up for failure. When we lose track of what we are we trick ourselves which end up hurting us in the long run. We should be vigilant in our ideologies to understand what we can and maybe more importantly, what cannot be done… which is along the lines of what we know; more importantly knowing at times that we do not know. When push comes to shove, civility will crumble. To be prepared let us embrace our inner savage as to forget our inner savage is to forget what we are, what we’re doing and will set us up for a long string of corruption and failures. Society is yet to work out its kinks and may never; We are very flawed humans. Civility certainly has its place and is particularly useful in how we treat others; Let us not forget what we are however; it is then that we open ourselves to direct or indirect harm. But of course, lets not go overboard and start eating each other.
I was thinking about the idea of embracing my inner cannibal, not just my inner savage, but I can’t seem to find either one of them. I wonder if I should seek psychological therapy in order to let go of my inner peace and happiness and reclaim the claw and fang mentality. I think I’ll start by practicing my growl and hiss. Grrrr. Ssss. Now I’m wondering if I’ll even need language any more as I revert back to my inner beast or reptile. That’s a thought.
Animals are vicious when they need to be, which is typically how people who value civility operate. So the dichotomy you set up strikes me as weak. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.
This is for people who typically don’t operate viciously when they need to be. I’m not so sure just how typical it is that people act viciously when they need to be, but this isn’t about acting vicious, it is about deconstructing the societal/civil mindset we have been indoctrinated with.
I don’t think it’s indoctrination, at base. I think it’s practical and intelligent to be civil to each other. Children are taught to be civil, not because it is unnatural, but because parents don’t want their children to die before they discover the benefits of civility on their own. Animals (all animals? I’m not sure) teach their young how to get food. Does that mean they’ve been indoctrinated - that eating is a “mere facade”?
What you think is practical and intelligent has nothing to do with it being an indoctrination of sorts and that goes the same for me. Getting food and eating food isn’t a matter of civility or not either. Yet of course there are mannerisms of how to conduct yourself while eating that are of concern in the area of civility.
As far as someone who may not operate viciously when they need to be, people will get taken advantage of, possibly because of the facade of civility. Being “polite” can deter one from inner motivations of someone who is willing to take advantage of one, such as money taking scams and such. Of course thats just one example.
There is no such thing as proof it is a matter of persuasion. So if you’re persuaded to think of such a thing as absolute is it really proof? If so who can say, do you have the objective god’s eye view that can discern the nature of reality to what constitutes the truth and evidence that leads to certain truths? In any case, there is my rant on proof for the day.
As far as language, body language is ample enough; we know there was body language because there has been sex (whether consensual or not, there is language there.) If you think the first people weren’t capable of understanding body language at the least, then its likely we aren’t referring to people. Aside from that, animals can decipher body language as well. This is fairly common. I couldn’t imagine myself an advanced animal not being able to recognize body language.
I gave the food example to illustrate that just because something is taught externally, that doesn’t make it “indoctrination”. So what does make something indoctrination, in your opinion?
It’s not clear to me how your example works. How does civility make me more likely to be scammed? “No, thank you” is civil. I’ll grant you we do like to keep our hands clean. Calling the police on a scammer, we may have no idea how things will unfold from there. Out of sight, out of mind and all that…
You may not be likely to get scammed because of civility. I don’t know you. Civility however, is a disguise for the wolf.
Here’s the definition of indoctrinate from Webster:
Definition of INDOCTRINATE
transitive verb
1
: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2
: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
What is uncivil about wolves? Specifically, how are wolves different from people who value civility? As I said before, “Animals are vicious when they need to be, which is typically how people who value civility operate.”
So by definition one, the animal that teaches its young how to get food is indoctrinating them. By definition two, teaching civility, which is neither partisan nor sectarian (by its nature, civility disempowers partisan and sectarian attitudes), is not an example of indoctrination.
Hmm. Maybe I should have said speech instead of language, since the word “language” encompasses for us symbolic gesturing and signaling that do not involve speech or phonemes.
On the other hand, if we stick to the idea of language, which can include speech and many other forms of communication, I think it might still be worthwhile to question the assertion that there was always language… unless language were to become some sort of all inclusive meme that encompasses all of life from the moment the first cell divided. Did it then take language to make life happen in the first place? How would that look and work, I wonder . . . .
I didn’t say “wolves” were civil or uncivil but it would be fairly impolite to scam someone would it not? But that is not the concern I was addressing. I don’t know how you determine though that people who value civility operate in a manner to be vicious when they need to be. People don’t typically consciously recognize a value for civility in most areas of their lives as it is likely just a natural mode to operate in due to indoctrination. My post is more directed to those that may not have recognize the facade of civility and how being civil is a value in their life or not. Certain codes of conduct within the current status quo of civility could be said that those who murder can get off on “good behavior” and live half their lives outside of punishment. Others may disagree of course on just how “civil” that is but of course that could certainly be said to be “polite” to a murderer.
Of course civility is most certainly partisan, it is a method of living to back certain values. Values being a judgment to what people think is best which in the area of civility can often come in a fairly common agreement among people as to the benefits and values of acting certain ways that promotes the general values of most of society. To that, civility is most certainly falls into the 1st definition upon deeper inspection. The antithesis to the values that are upheld through civility could be highly of course, discouraged by most. That doesn’t mean that civility is non partisan, but of course the lack of recognition of such from yours or anyone else’ perception would not be foreseen to reject such a notion due to the nature of indoctrination of civility and social conditioning from our parents, the education system and beyond. Perhaps the antithesis would include some discouragement or lack of value in human interaction, perhaps for the sake of peace overall or perhaps for the sake of despising humanity. Perhaps the antithesis can be seen in the general direction of today’s society in contrast with 50 years ago, in which the average citizen is more outspoken, more willing to lay down truthful opinions that are derogatory by nature as opposed to not saying anything, or so. Whether you value that or not is not the matter at hand, but it does show there is another possible side that is eclipsed through your claim that civility is non partisan, or unbiased. That in itself is a biased claim.
If physics uncovers language among matter in the form of cause and effect, I suppose we could loosely consider it so. I would be very surprised however considering the human mind’s capability and natural hard wired nature to communicate and form language as well as the physical nature of our voice box and tongues to communicate such things, that somewhat obvious “words” were formed probably nearly the same time frame that grunts were formed. Of course, crying itself is audible communication and language from a child, mentioning that something is needed or something is wrong. We cry at birth, I wouldn’t know why we would even think the first human wouldn’t have done the same.
I see what you’re saying. Yes, people are often civil on the surface only. Their civility is an act, and can in fact be a tool for aggression. I agree.
Bias and partisanship are radically different. I could say “I am against partisanship, that is my bias.” There is no contradiction in that statement.
Bias and partisanship can be considered synonyms, they are not radically different… All partisanship is bias, all bias is not necessarily identified as a structured partisanship. Partisan is systematic bias.
I think we’re talking past each other at this point. I suspect there’s some misunderstanding happening, so I’ll back up.
How would you suggest that a person “embrace their inner savage”? What exactly do you mean by that? I’m not looking for a prescription, just an example or two of what it means for you.