Proudhon- “As man seeks justice in equality so society seeks order in anarchy.”
The social contract is a metaphysical ontological device built upon eradicating the individual will to power for a forced existence of societal dependence.
Because of its metaphysical and ontological quality it can be rejected not to mention it can be taken without real seriousness.
It is the dogmatic faith of the government, the bourgeois, and the aristrocrat.
It is a wild sporadic superstitious hysteria perpetuated by people of the absurd and it has never had anything to do with nature nor does it have any connection to actual reality whatsoever.
Well as said above its got everything to do with nature, as we are a part of nature. As to its conection to reality look around, do we not have a society. It looks pretty real to me.
Thing is Joker you may be happy to destroy society and all knowlege that goes with it to live like an animal, but most humans like society, they like the comfort it provides, the security. We have problems with the nature of society because there are winners and loosers, but as time goes on society will change for the better, wether it will be through revolt or through gradual development and peacefull practice. But society itself will not fall until the human race does. Your gunna have to get used to that and stop living in a dream world
I would maintain that the existence of society (in whatever incarnation) gives you the freedom and time to spend thinking about these problems. Without the structure that society provides for interaction and discussion things like Philosophy would not have existed.
OK, maybe that is a bit strong but interaction seems to be the key to learning . Would be able to even debate this point with you if society did not exist? I think not. I guess you could reply that whether we debate it or not is irrelevant but how did you form your philosophical viewpoint without the historical knowledge and community that is preserved through society?
The social contract is merely an extension of the ideal political interests of the state.
It derives from man’s mythological idealization of himself and is reminiscent of divine religious law from above.
The social contract seeks to bind one generation by the idealized promises of another. It negates the obligation of each individual to exercise his private judgements on existence in short it destroys the individual will to power.
It is based on the fallacious idea that we must fulfill our promises,whereas we should make no promises at all, but perform acts only because we will them.
It seems like joker just ignores responses and instead continues to repost the same tired drivel that is spouted in any number of emo, “reject”, or punk-like groups that have a problem with “society” even when society has no problem with them(or real negative effect on them, for that matter).
It is the world of those who find a philosophy that fits their needs and stick to it rigorously lest their world be torn apart by their own angst.
The “will to power” he speaks of is nothing more than the slave driver keeping him pinned below society for the remainder of his life…Just as it was for his beloved teacher.
It is nothing more than a dream of fancy, a reality that exists only in the imagination, for if there is an external world, it certainly does not appear to operate in such a manner. The will to power is a tired old phrase of the ones deemed not worthy of friendship or fellowship.
Don’t get me wrong, Neit had some good points, but “the will to power” was an ad hoc, convoluted mess of a philosophical position.
Piss off you idealistic elitist trash. Your scared because without your social contract or perceived morals you wouldn’t be able to survive by your own hands.
There would be no reason why someone couldn’t just come up to you and edit you out of existence which makes you eternally fearful inside.
Are you really serious, or do you just come on here to joke?
I don’t care if someone “edits me out of existence.”
If you can show me that someone with this ability somehow has more worth than me, or some reason me being killed or destroyed and unable to survive without society would make any difference in the “grand scheme of things” or w/e you would like to think of “existence” as…
What say you of the social contract being generated by will to power? Some big-ass caveman bullying his other cavemen into line because he wants to dominate them or something like that. Apply to any society as necessary.
Or, perhaps people like to depend on each other or are just willing to give up some ‘freedom’ so they don’t have to be hunter-gatherers.
There are versions of the Social Contract that have metaphysical elements and even metaphysical underpinnings. John Rawls’ version contains a regrettable metpahysical element. But metaphysics is not fundamental to a social contract, nor is idealism. A social contract can simple be an agreement among the members of the group, and that agreement can change.
I can’t take Rawls seriously, in the end, nor can I take Rousseau seriously. In fact, Rawls may be the only thinker left who does take Rousseau seriously. But I can’t take nihilism seriously, either. There is a middle ground.
My problem with the social contract is that I was not involved in its negotiation, adequately educated in its existence, or provided a copy for reference. I did not sign a social contract, yet I am expected to abide by its vague requirements without adequate compensation.
A social contract should be made physical, and all should be adequately enfranchised.
Lacking these requirements, I am forced to accept your basic premise, if not specific claims.
Isn’t that then the “elitist trash’s” will to power? You know for preaching about the will to power, you sure hate the bourgeois; the very class of people who are unafraid to practiced their will to power.
I say fuck the whiny proletariat; all they seem to demand is egalitarian ideals of religion and statism or–as you seem to postulate–the reversion back an anarchic “state of nature” where simple brute force determines your power.
If you agree that evolution is the fundamental determinant of most of our psychological aggregates, then you’ll also agree that the pack-instinct, the monkey sphere, and the resulting coalescence of a societal unit that ensures survival is just as natural as posable thumbs.
Nietzsche didn’t say that Schopenhauer’s ‘will to live’ was wrong, he just said it was but a large reflective aspect of the ‘will to power’. Until the welfare of an organism is in its most ideal circumstances, it will undoubtedly practice the ‘will to live’–i.e. the drive to simply sustain one’s boundaries of dominion while under oppressive forces. When survival is somewhat ensured, then the ‘will to power’–the drive to extend one’s boundaries of dominion beyond simple sustenance–will ensue.
And, depending on that organism’s mental capabilities, this will to power may manifest in an assortment of realms and fields of dominion. For socially sophisticated animals such as apes, dogs, and–oh, the irony–humans, this usually materializes in social structures and complex hierarchies wherein ontological and teleological forms such as morality are manipulated and leveraged by the bourgeois for–yup, you guessed it–the will to power.
The only reason why people hate the bourgeois is because they’re jealous.
Not true, the social construct or contract is a result of being a mammal that continously engages in hiearchy structure/ladder, humans do a range of things because we’re born with brains that have adaptive evolutionary mechanisms to deal quickly, and economically, with situations we dealt with in our brain’s EEA, hunter/gatherer societies where humankind spent well over 99.9% of its time as a race. Social contracts are the natural result of a normal functioning many of the same species interacting with shared universal cognitive architecture.
Nothing wrong with social contracts - they provide order - and they ARE based on fear - which is the only form of law/government that works.
(works great for religion too!)
