Robinson Crusoe

I am reminded of the story of Robinson Crusoe shipwrecked on a island with noone to talk with beyond himself amongst a world of nature completely indifferent to this wants,desires, and personal inclinations.

Later on he meets a native which he calls Friday largely because he was too lazy to learn the native language in which Friday utilized.

Upon meeting Robinson tries very hard to teach Friday his customs of using utensils for eating,about the so called glory of god on the account of the bible, and how to urinate in one place instead of all over the place which Friday was accustomed to.

Why did Robinson go through all this trouble of trying to teach Friday all these things that Friday was not accustomed to?

Why was Robinson allowed to pass such judgements and decisions upon Friday? What gave Robinson the right to make the native Friday a so called civilized human being?

In comparison what gives the right of authority to represent everyone to make judgements, laws, and decisions over human beings lives?

FRIDAAAAYYY!!! :astonished:
haha

joker please convert to heavenlydemonicism…it will save u.

If you are talking about government and society, you should read up on Social Contract Theory. Having a system of rules is beneficial to maintaining order in a society. It is necessary to sacrifice certain freedoms (like the freedom to kill and steal). Unfortunately systems go too far sometimes.

But in the case of Robinson and Friday… Robinson should not have forced his practices onto Friday because he had no basis for his practices being any better. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is such and important motto to understand that it could just save your life. In the case of government, it would be Romans agreeing with one another about what should and should not be done.

The nitty gritty things like abortion, gun control, drugs, alcohol and seat belts all come down to the society passing rules that protect the longevity of its members, or promoting good moral character. You might not like a particular aspect of such a law, but you must see learn how to see the big picture.

For your first question it is helpful to remember the context of Defoe’s time and place.

I do love this bit from the novel, where the man Friday, after being saved by Crusoe from would-be murderers, “…kneeled down again, kiss’d the ground, and laid his head upon the ground, and taking me [Crusoe] by the foot, set my foot upon his head; this, it seems, was in token of swearing to be my slave forever.” (pg. 161) Fantastic. But it is worth nothing how thoroughly Crusoe mastered not only his man Friday but the island itself.

As for your second question Crusoe himself might remind us that he had the gun after all, and I believe that answers your third question as well.

To Pardicat,

Isn’t Robinson Crusoe personifying the same misguided authority on Friday like that of a government on it’s citizens?

Is that anything like the alien space cult of Bob?

My arguements against the social contract-

The social contract is invalid because people don’t have a choice in whether or not to take part of it.

The social contract is not a contract in the normal sense and there is no document involved.

David Hume pointed out that the social contract is supposed to be the foundation of moral obligation, but that, at the same time, a contract is a promise which, is itself , a moral obligation. So what is the foundation of moral obligation is - a moral obligation. Circularity.

The social contract is pathetic considering that it would require a preexisting social contract in every human era of history which isn’t the case of all human history.

Any social contract theory can also be used to justify any ammount of oppression.

What you don’t see is that Robinson Crusoes was trying to establish his social contract on Friday.

Well that’s one way of putting it, I suppose… more probably the imperialist values of 18th century Britain.

I’m just as likely mistaken on some point of fact, but I understand this to be a common enough interpretation.

It seems to be the same proposition of all governments throughout all human history.

How so?

A person is born into a world where they are constantly surrounded by a bunch of people and institutions that tell them there is a right way to live when in all reality no proposition exists.

Doesn’t neccesarily mean they aren’t right or important, you deny the importance of relativity ?

If you accept the full relevance of relativity then you would accept millions of oppressed individuals daily killing their oppressors in complete global rebellion where there is no order but a constant daily existance of mayhem.

You don’t accept that just like the rest of those who operate society on the account that you want a moral civic determinism to herd individuals into enslavement while the few benefit all at the same time of constructing this make believe form of progression in a humanist fashion.

Do as I say and not as I do is the mentality of our sick authority.

… Try your to make your words comply with with definate necessity.
try to make your words comply as close to the abolute truth as possible whilst still being relative.

For the sake of your argument and beliefs that alone will help you see ‘holes’ in your thoughts if done seriously.

Show me the flaws. Please point them out.

Don’t just make a statement while not backing any criteria.

My chances of successfully getting through to you are skewed if you don’t want to see your logical flaws and if you do you can do it yourself rather easily.

How convenient of you. :sunglasses: