Of course the world is not actually justified beyond what humans add to it with our notions of justice and right or wrong. But that is what we do, we create meaning and reasons, we act with ideas of justice and purpose and where possible we attempt to order the world with respect to these feelings of ours.
Perhaps most importantly, though, is the fact that those who possess a justification for the world gain power in the world precisely because of how they are able to take advantage of the human need to seek and create meaning and order. And those various forms of justification are often “at war” with each other, and the “better designed” or “luckier” ones will tend to succeed those less well designed or less lucky.
What kind of world do you want to live in? What SHOULD the world look like? You may not want to or care about asking these questions, but be assured there are many others in power and seeking power who do ask them. And the world is the product of such perspectives more than the apathetic perspective.
I have no choice but to outwardly concede to the vast majority on the major implication I was making, but if you refuse to take your views to their logical collusion because your trying to avoid being associated with certain people, then I’m going to call you on it. The ass clown, as you put it, has a very similar philosophy to you, if you can’t give any credence to that, then you’re no better than who you claim not to be.
I didn’t say you were the ass clown, here, I only said that he explains who it is that would be at the top of the stack, (re)read the quote and tell me how I’m wrong, or stop giving your goddamn lectures.
Zinnat, I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand the logic your using as an objection here. Of course I know that the word “opposite” may be used too casually here, but I don’t see the fundamental problem. Maybe I have some idea of where your coming from; correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the idea of the caste system is in the forefront of you mind? But, are those considered to be of a higher class/caste, happier, more noble, or better in any given way? I would guess, in my ignorance on the matter, that that may not generally be the case.
What i said has nothing to do with me personally, cast system or with my back ground.
I merely objected the inefficiency of MM while presenting his ideas. He wrote too casually in this thread two times and without realizing what he is saying and whether that would serve his own purpose or not.
You rightly mentioned about the word Opposite and i explained about that in my last post too.
Now, let me take the OP again-
Now, his basic idea here is to establish the justification of being strong and their supremacy over weak ones. Right. But, he did not select the right words for it, and proved just opposite to his intent.
Let me show you why.
He says that the only justification of the existence of the ordinary ones is that they serve the purpose of being dominated by the powerful. Otherwise, their existence is not justified. Right.
So, what does this mean?
[u]Does it not mean that some powerful exist only because they have some ordinary ones to rule over?
If you eliminate all ordinary, there would no powerful either. Simply because, the ruler would not have anyone to rule, thus would become ordinary.
In other words, it is essential for the powerful to have some ordinary around.
On the other hand, there is no such compulsion for the masses to follow. They can survive without any problem whether there would be any powerful one around or not.
So, this is to say that powerful is dependent on the masses for his existence, but masses are not[/u].
So, now may i ask that which one should be considered more powerful in real terms?
A dependant or a self sustainable?
An elite or ordinary?
Sturt, at the grass root level, there is no exclusiveness as every thing is inclusive. Both N and his followers got it all wrong from the very beginning. They try to chase power and want to build an ontology on it. But, that is not going to happen in any case.
And, the reason is simple. Power does not come in absolutes but in relative quantity only. It is merely a relative measure. Weak does not represent absolute lacking of power. And, in the same way, a powerful does not represent an all mighty either. The difference between these two is merely in quantity, not in quality.
Again, there are not opposites as MM tried to present it. No one can be complete master or even slave. We all have both though in different degree. Any individual exists only because some others around him also exist. Existence entails plurality.
Forget about humans. Think about the chain of fish in the sea. Every big fish eats the smaller one and so on. Big is dominant but dependent too. You cannot eliminate anyone from the chain and the system would collapse.
So, the only justification of the existence of anyone of us is just our existence. Nothing else is required. Everyone is essential and equally important. There is no premium on any particular one whatsoever.
If you can’t even make your own arguments, what are you doing here? I’m not interested in huge copy/pastes of someone I’ve already written off and understand all too well. That you see my arguments as parallel to his speaks to your position relative to the subject matter, and relative to us.
I don’t know what he did to you, but your obsession has nothing to do with me. Kindly address me and my ideas if you like, but make your own points and stop throwing this other baggage around like it matters.
Not that it matters, but from my perspective, the actual justification for any and all life (given no further specifics) rests in the momentum of life itself. In its most simplistic form, the more of it there is, the higher the probability that life will continue. Of course once life gets terribly complex, life begins to feed on life and the momentum is threatened by internal dissonance (aka “evil”, “demons”, “vampires”… [size=85]moderators, governments,…[/size]).
Life justifies itself, yes certainly. The more (or greater type/quality) of life that exists therefore the more of this kind of justification will exist. But I’m concerned with specific forms of justification, as well as to confront the issue that there is a seemingly wide-spread position which holds that life is justified IN FACT and there are implicit rights associated with living things. The common view is that commonness is a right and the justification for life, people want a right to exist and for their preferred mode of existence to continue (with as little effort on their part as possible). The opposite of this position is examined in the OP, that life is justified only by its upper limit and highest eschelon of development, potential, power.
The issue is less “are these views of life possessing an inherent justification actually justified/true?” and more “what is the structure of these various kinds of views, how do they set themselves up against individuals and the world?”. In short, what might be good or bad, valuable or not valuable about them?
The ends justifies the means certainly,has become embedded in the common vernacular. The structural means the formal ends. The facts are more prone to determine the succeeding values developed, as an analogy, the structural makeup as the skeleton upon which the tissues,and sinews and the musculature of evaluation build a presentation for a case for justification. It may not be a matter of higher echelons being able to come to justify the stage of art of the end product, it’s probably an inferential process involving all segments of society, albeit the skin depth of seeming as though only the apparent top notch parts have any significant part to play.