Modern Philosophy: Leftism and the Superiority Complex

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A large portion of modern philosophers (and those interested in philosophy) catalyze philosophy as a means of justifying their superiority.

Why is this?

It is an inherent psychological mechanism within the human mind, that a small portion of the human population will eventually become what we consider “philosophical thinkers” - this is for the purpose of benefiting the whole species.
As an intelligent individual becomes more and more rejected by his/her peers throughout his/her life, he/she begins to think more and more abstractly and begins to develop for themselves a higher sense of morality. That individual will essentially look for things in the current set-up of his/her society which seem to be wrong. Essentially, the individual establishes morality within his/her mind to feel as if he/she is more superior than the general population.

The individual will then go to society with what he/she learned, and if it is believable by peers and accepted, the society will then try to apply the morality to itself. However, if the individual is rejected, their new-found morality is not applied to the society.

These individuals are known as “leftists”.

Religion, philosophy, superstitions, and morality are examples of this effect.

Over time, this will eventually benefit the species by filtering out flaws in the structure of that society. This is accomplished when morals are produced which somehow (directly or indirectly) benefit the well-being of that particular society.

Modern philosophy is an example of the failure of this inherent psychological mechanism in doing its purpose. This is because most problems/flaws in a society are resolved with lawmaking and by a society’s government.

Instead, modern leftism accomplishes nothing other than supporting the superiority complex of the leftist individual. Most of the time, modern philosophy does nothing other than re-word common sense or intentionally complicate simple things. They do this to present the illusion for themselves that they have discovered something new and original, or to feel as if they are somehow privileged above the average person.

2

Eventually, using this logic, we can come to find that a very large portion of all social interactions and all social related matters are caused by hidden psychological attempts to attain superiority among peers, to become seated in the “alpha position”.

The only real escape from this primitive behavior are non-malicious human activities such as the arts, self-improvement, and the sharing of experiences with others.

However, male individuals which stop themselves from practicing malicious activities are usually forced into a life without a sexual partner. This is because females are attracted to power, and the easiest way for power to be demonstrated is through malicious actions.

The only real alternative is for males to reserve their urge to display power when in an act of self-defense (for example, protecting themselves or other people). This not only includes physical conflicts but also social conflicts (arguments, accusations, etc).

The problem is, even though malicious actions can be deemed wrong by law, this is only one part of the problem. The other part is, that females are naturally attracted to power, and this almost promotes malicious activity.

The end result is, “good men” are considered “pussies, panzies, weak, etc” because of their self-discipline to not practice malicious actions. In effect, they are sentencing themselves to a life of rejection.

This also creates a “tier effect” where social tiers are established with varying levels of malicious actions being performed - this leads to the same expected “alpha-placement” of individuals within those tiers, although the alpha-arrangement is slightly less pronounced due to a heavier layer of morality blocking malicious actions.

Also, groups of people with higher moral standards are eventually filtered out of the human population, because people with lower moral standards reproduce quicker.

Modern society is not hopeless, at least for now, as eventually maturity will set-in in adulthood, and people begin recognizing the simpleness of primitive actions.
As for the future of mankind, however, I fear that eventually intelligent and morally-correct people will disappear and be replaced by unintelligent individuals with lower morals (simply because they reproduce quicker).

3

There there - I know I know….

and its it’s so so difficult to imagine a world where the right would have a superiority complex - though one might envisage it as been a little like this!

:slight_smile:)

nietzsche.21.forumer.com/

4

Women aren’t attracted to power or maliciousness, they’re attracted to influence. People that produce actions and objects that have the most-widely recognized benefit tend to gain the most influence because others want to mimic their behavior or reproduce their objects. “Nice” guys finish last because they’re not really nice at all, they’re hateful and scared, which makes them ineffectual.

5

So you’ve changed the word “power” to “influence” because it sounds nicer, but the concept still remains the same.
What makes you think that “nice guys” are hateful and scared?
If you consider them hateful and scared, couldn’t you use the same logic to determine that everyone else is hateful and scared? But nice guys have a mind to try and discipline themselves away from hateful impulses?

6

Not really. Connotation matters. Influence is closer to something like “leading by example”, where power is generally thought of as “coercion through force.” In that vein, women are attracted to men whom other men admire and mimic, not men who other men are defeated by.

I don’t really. But the “nice guys” that you’re talking about, the ones that repel women, most certainly are. It’s the fear and reclusiveness, the neediness, that turns them off. Women attracted to rational and deserved expressions of compassion.

7

Knox:
I don’t really. But the “nice guys” that you’re talking about, the ones that repel women, most certainly are. It’s the fear and reclusiveness, the neediness, that turns them off. Women attracted to rational and deserved expressions of compassion."

K: this dialogue about what women want is beginning to make me wonder if either one of you have
actually seen a women. I am beginning to have my doubts.

Kropotkin

8

:unamused:

9

Peachy,

The OP was meant to be a reasoned, rational (philosophical) commentary… right?

I ask because–assuming it was meant for “philosophical” discussion–there are a lot of errors/irrationalities, and I think that maybe I could provide some insight into the root of those shortcomings, but right now it doesn’t feel worthwhile because (though, from reading the entire post, I highly doubt it) maybe you are aware of them, and you weren’t attempting to rationally describe and explain “leftism and the superiority complex”, but instead (poetically) expressing a mythology (way of seeing the world) that you think ought to be accepted (believed with “faith” for the purpose of personal well-being)–if that is the case (I am not 100% certain, but I doubt it is), I also think the OP missed its mark (I don’t see that–especially with the terms you used–a beneficial way of seeing and making sense of things).

I know you like Nietzsche, so I had to at least entertain the possibility you were writing (your own) mythology (reflecting your own morals), well aware it doesn’t accurately express how/what/why things actually (“outside” a “human” mind) are.

10

The malice aimed at a ‘nice guy’ by an alpha male does not mean that the alpha male is not much nicer to his women than the ‘nice guy’ could ever be. Outburst of anger and perhaps occasional physical aggression are preferable to neediness and clinging, the general sense of insecurity.
Power is also self control, Lack of power is inability to direct ones own course. If theres one thing terrifying to a potential partner its aimlessness. And whats more aimless than a dejected young intellectual who has already given up on himself, and spends his time rationalizing his loss?

11

Good points, Jakob.

“Power” (as I see Nietzsche’s meaning in “Will to Power”) is not necessarily physical strength, or “darwinistic” adaptability, but a sense of ease/well-being/security/competence–one (mind) is harmoniously processing/integrating and changing with the objects of (its) awareness.

In terms of a man towards a woman–(he and) she feels that he enjoys her (presence/affect/influence on his experience), but he doesn’t need her (to be a certain way) in order for him to feel “full”.

12

I still am convinced that the general mechanisms of the female sex-drive are responsible for impeding human progress (with progress being humanity aimed towards a more selfless, more enjoyable species)

13

Are you saying
A) you are convinced the general mechanisms of the female sex-drive are responsible for all things impeding human progress (as you defined it)–that, in a sense, all the “ills” of man result from “Eve” (not implying you believe that particular myth has relevance… I’m just using that as an analogy)

B) that, even if there have been and are other things/beings that did not (at least initially) result from the female-sex drive (meaning, the mchnsms of fm sx drv was not responsible for these things’ initial processings/manifestations/beings/etc.), these things would have been overcome/changed, if it weren’t for the mch of the fm sx drive

OR (and from your wording I doubt this last one, but wanna make sure)

C) Though the female sex-drive is not the sole root ( not the only thing responsible for impeding hmn prgrs), and not the sole preventer of progression, but it is the major significant source and/or preserver (*that we can identify with material form/activity) of that which impedes human progress

?

Some more questions:

-Can you clarify what you mean by “the general mechanisms behind the female sex drive”? I have (honestly) spent a lot of time trying to find an interpretation I am comfortable with, but it’s just not happening (I require something a little more concrete and specific).

[size=150]I think I get that you are differentiating “mechanism(s)” from “drive”[/size]
(
even if their meanings (here) both refer to and depend on the end result (of sex)–IE the words only have meaning in that they
(a collection of required processes that, as a “whole” “system”, are THE necessary)
causei (of)[/i]
sex
)
[size=150]in order to emphasize that not all (results of) mechanisms
(“systems” within/a part of the encompassing “female sex drive” “system”)
have been responsible for the cause and/or sustained “bondage”/“temptation”/inability to “overcome” human progress…

but I am not sure what you mean by “general” mechanisms (and why you found that word fitting/appropriate to categorize those mechanisms…that are responsible for impeding human progress). [/size]

-Matt

14

Previous wrote:
" still am convinced that the general mechanisms of the female sex-drive are responsible for impeding human progress (with progress being humanity aimed towards a more selfless, more enjoyable species) "

Without the female, there is no species man. Without the sex drive, there is no species period.

Progress is impeeded far less than it is catalyzed by sex drives, male or female. . . man desires female attention, and vice versa. This energy is redirected along social lines and away from mating behaviors. Freud explained such libidinal repression and redirection quite well.

Sex drive is surely a source of conflicts, ultimately it is THE source of conflicts between men. . . but these conflicts, even when they “appear” to be counter-progressive, are always serving the interests of progress itself. Marching the species forward, it doesnt matter where just as long as it moves, and that it survives.

And as for your being humanity aimed towards a more selfless, more enjoyable species, im not sure just how this is at all related to progress. This sounds more like a leftist superiority complex impressed by an assumed moral mandate upon everyone, which of course is nothing more than mere whim.

15

Aww, those nasty, selfish women, refusing to share their enjoyment. :stuck_out_tongue:

Would it be progress for humans to evolve into Bonobos?