Public Civic Roles And Disgusting Absurdity.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The genetic presuppositions for the self are of course given at birth.

( physical stimuli)

The self as it is expirienced later as a subjectively and objectively recognizable identity is not.

How then do we address men as lower class identities or identities that are tied into public roles of occupation?

Instutionalization revolves around a reciprocal typfication of actions by types of habitualized actors.

The institutions posits that actions of type X will be performed by actors of type X but from whom’s authority does it extend from?

Why should a man or woman accept any role?

Why must men and women be defined by institutions?

Why must some men be defined as poor undesirable souls in the face of other men which the institutions desire and praise as the better man?

Often enough when one crudely says, " This is how these things are done," one believes it themselves.

The institutions are historical and objective facticities who confront individuals as undeniable facts.

Why should people be any public role on stage in acting by dramas installed in them by institutions?

Specifically on the subject of the lower classes which are seen to have no applicable function beyond servitude and consumerism why should the lower classes be anything that the institution applies them to be?

The institution sees some individuals as obsolete when it can no longer find luxory in their existence. Such individuals are seen as worthless anachroisms.

Why must they be forced into purposeles work, public roles and even more purposeless lives?

Why must a lower class man feel guilt that he himself hasn’t reached a mythological nonexistent idealistic standard of another being?

What does he have to feel guilty about in himself?

What gives one man the justification in saying to another, “thou art that” ?

Is it the economy? Is it the government? Is it some supernatural godhead?

It then becomes apparent that the talk of equality is useless and the motion of the prisoner’s dilemma ongoing drama manufactured by institutions is indefinite.

The absurdity from all of this is that material existence is irreducible to knowledge including physical bodies of men.

Praxis outsrips knowledge in its real efficacy.

2

’

3

What I am basically saying is that there exists no real applicable reason or foundation into why people should accept any public role, occupation or title forced upon them economically.

The lower classes would do well to know this.

The government and all the higher up aristrocrats know this but say nothing because in all reality they would not be able to exist or subsist without forced labor.

By knowing this all politics becomes a elaborate insidious distraction in order to disguise this knowledge permanently either by the art of political deception or full blown violence which sometimes ends up in acts of murder by government institutions along with the highly effective policies of imprisonment.

Morality which acts as a binding presence in government and legal institutions also reverts to the same deception in order to keep forced labor intacted by making laborers believe they are morally responsible for their positions of poverty by “false” guilt and that they are under obligation to keep fufilling their labor via economical exploitation.

( In America we call this effective capitalism.)

4

Here lies two important questions that all governments and economies refuse to answer but all locked up prisoners know all too well:

  1. If I don’t benefit from the participation in society why should I be obliged to do anything?

Why should I be obliged to follow anybody’s law?

If I don’t benefit from any transaction being made the way I see it I am responsible to noone.

  1. If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world why should they be obliged to responsibility of being good knowing that such a thing would decay their chances of reasonable survival?
5

Roles people have could have been ingrained through DNA strands which could nave been imprinted during people’s experiences and passed onto their progeny. Which construes that men are hunters and women are gatherers from socialogical and scientific studies.

6

I am talking about public roles of class and occupation in terms of economics.

( This thread doesn’t deal with the role of the sexes.)

7

If we all agree that civilization can’t exist without forced labor I would like to suggest a dilemma that faces all culturalists.

Is forced pressurized labor natural?

Is monetary systemizations like money and wealth devices in which I can find amongst nature in observation?

Is forced isolation, alienation, and desensitization natural qualities?

8

Oh?

9

:slight_smile: Indeed.

10 
define what is " their chances of reasonable survival "
11

as I said for your own good

what I’m trying to say is that , I don’t participate much in general society but in the end it does me good . because I don’t get caught up so much in the fashion of the times so to speak , I’m outside looking in

12

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

13

Now we see the absurdity of economics guided by moral aims all the more clearly. :slight_smile:

14

Reasonable success in living.

15

how so ?

16

“Thou art what I make you.”

17

Well what if I say the definitions and circumstances that economics applies to myself is no good?

What will your fancy economical outlook do then? [-X

18

He is a pompous conservative ass looking into this thread from his ivory tower, probally. :laughing:

19

Soul? :unamused: ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

Also:

  1. I can’t aquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them. [-X
20

Thou art what I make myself