A while ago I posted a response to a thread whose topic was “The charge of relativism.” The post, as I understand, was arguing against relativism. I was arguing for it, but more importantly, I ended up writing a long response that happend to reflect my whole philosophy on life very effectively. No one posted any replies to my post, so I was sort of hoping some of you could read it, and in that way get a good idea of my philosophy. Im hoping to get your thoughts about that post and my philosophy on life in general. Any replies would be greatly appreciated.
Now, In my humble opinion, you seem (although I could be mistaken) to forget about colors. Is it not true that in any and all possible situations that the White will allways be White, and never be black? It may appear to be green, or yellow, or whatever…but that is a matter of individual perception of the color — and not an issue with the color, itself.
My point is: I don’t think one should be too fast to say that all or most things are relative.
In the real world (daily life), we must live as if absolutes do exist. Arguing that I should not be sent to prison for murdering because “I didn’t feel murder was wrong” will not sound very plausable to a Judge.
You cannot live a life without absolutes, and yet not fall head-first into absurdity. I do not think mankind will continue to live civily very long after we all decide that Muduring can be both right and wrong in any given situation. It would lead to total anarchy, and in the end, future generations would most likely end-up learning how to live as a society from all over again.
Is abortion murder? It might be, or it might not be. Regardless of whether abortion is murder or not, it must be one or the other. It cannot be niether, and it cannot be both. It is something. And this still applies even it you remove the moral aspect of it.
If morals are relative to each person/situation, then how can you expect any murdur to ever publicly say that his actions were wrong? He will allways say that no matter what he does, he will allways be doing what is right (since it relative to him). Nothing can be wrong if morals are relative.
And, in my humble opinion, if there is no such thing as wrong, then we have no longer any way to understand what is “right”. The two opposites cancel each other out, so to speak.
But you are only hearing one side of things. God is perfectly good, AND He is perfectly Just.
And, the laziest guy may end up winning the lottery, but in general, this does not happen. The lottery is won by both hard-working and lazy people. However, it is more probable that we will retire rich if we go ahead, and work hard so that in case we don’t win that lottery, we still are likely to have at least some money to live on after retiring.
Or, we could forget work and spend our lives expecting to win the lottery.
Now, which senerio do you think occurs most often?
…just my humble thoughts anyways. Sorry if if this is kinda confussing. I had a diffificult time putting my thoughts into words. Thanks.
Actually color is a great argument against wrong and right as absolutes. See, color doesn’t actually exist. It is merely our perception of something that does exist. That is a specific wavelength of light. Colors dont actually exist. They are the way our minds interpret the type of wavelength of light our eyes pick up being reflected from objects that exist. I can imagine a situation where a being has a sensory organ that interprets the wavelengths of light as a sound instead of a sight. So he tells the diffirence in color of objects by hearing diffirent tones instead of seeing diffirent colors.
You argue that we must act like there are absolutes, but I would disagree. I dont believe in absolutes such as murder is wrong, and I live fine. You don’t need absolutes becuase we live in a society with laws. I am a logical person, and in my objective of persuing pleasure, I am aware of those laws. Thus I dont think murder is wrong, but i would not commit murder becuase I am aware of the consequences of breaking US law. Not becuse of some arbitrary, non-empericly evident, law of the universe. And a countrie’s laws in now way indicate absolutes, becuase every government has very diffirent laws.
I dont expect any murderer to say he is absolutely wrong. I would expect him to say he is wrong in terms of the laws of his country.
The problem of “right” not existing without wrong is fine, I dont think either exist. What does exist are the chemicals or natural causes of pain and pleasure. I believe what we percieve as wrong and right are reflections of what causes us pain and pleasure. Just like color is a reflection of what wavelength of light hits our eyes. And just like color doesn’t actually exist, and is a product of our minds, so is wrong and right. Except, luckily, color is generally percieved the same way by every 1. Pain and pleasure are far too relative, and thus wrong and right reflect that. Thats why poeple generally agree that murder is wrong, becuase everyone agrees it would cause them or the people they love pain. But that only makes it wrong in terms of them, again, not wrong in terms of a universal absolute. So if someone murdered my best friend, and I came up to the murderer and said “you have done the wrong thing” that statement would hold no water. I could say “You have wronged me” because he has caused me pain.
Youre absolutly right that in general, the guy that works harder makes more money and is gennerally happier than the lazy guy. But thats exactly my point. It is only statisticly more probable that the hard worker is more succesful than the lazy guy. Hard work is not an absolute. Neither is murder. Murder just happens to statisticly cause more pain than is worth to the murderer. So its wrong only in terms of the pain of the murderer or a society’s laws, not just wrong in general. Just like I made the example of stealing 1,000,000 dollars in my old post, the same applies to murder. If somebody for any reason actually greatly enjoys commiting murder, and he knows he will not recieve punishment and thus will feel no pain for his actions, he would be perfectly logical in murdering. Thats why its up to a government to enforce its laws and attempt to make every action that causes pain very risky. Thus I stand by the idea that relativism works perfectly fine for individuals in a society.
Opps…yeah, you are right on this one. I guess I completely overlooked the fact that color it actualy how we percieve light… pps:
But are laws completely relative to the point where one can interpret them anyway they want…and still, expect to face no “painfull” consequence?
If laws are absolute, they serve no purpose. The laws were originally created to give us guidelines so we can live and communicate as a society of people. If the guidelines can be interpreted in any possible fashion, then they are no longer usefull, since people will just go on doing exactly what they feel like doing – since they can claim that they are doing what is in accordance to how they interpret the guidelines.
And, how can anything be now said to be tragic. I was not directly affected by the terroists on 9/11. Hence, relative to me, the terrorists could be said to be cooperating in a functional manner with America’s people & society…correct?
The terrorist firmly believed that they were doing the best possible thing – otherwise, they would have not have done what they did, correct?
Then, could it not easily be said that the terroists were living fine, since they were doing what is in accordance to how they interpret their “laws” (in this case, the guidelines of Islam)?
I just fail to see how anyone can live civily while living in a society that totally and completely denies all form of absolutes.
…Again, these are just my humble opiniins anyways.
Laws are not relative. Thats what I was trying to say. If every person in the world thought the way I did and there was no higher power to keep people in check, there would be chaos. Anarchy would lead to chaos. I firmly believe we need a system of government to control us, and force these consequences and punishments on us so that we dont go wild. So I guess laws become the arguable point then. What laws should society have? Well ive been thinking about it, and I think im on to something. I think you would agree that societies in the world at this point have there problems. Im not going to explain my ideas for how the governemnt SHOULD operate becuase its way too complex and long. I will say that the laws I would propose come from reason and logic. And my belief that persuit of pleasure is humanity’s driving force will be evident in my government. Its a work in progress, and maybe its not practicle, but I believe I can prove it makes the most sense. So the laws of a government should not be interpreted. I bet though our founding fathers knew that society would evolve, and thus left the constitution flexible and open for interpretation. Thats beside the point. Societies, governments, laws, are all perfectly logical in their existence. Theres a great reason for every one of them to exist. So taking that into consideration, I can live my life being a pure relativist, having to accept the laws I was born into, just like I have to accept the natural law that if I touch a thornbush, it hurts. Or I can take it upon myself to try and change the laws to better suit me, which is exactly what democracy is based on. Democracy is the relativists playground. Either way, I will live my life in persuit of pleasure, becuase pleasure is realy the only thing I can be sure is “Good”
9/11 happend for a reason just like everything else. Just becuase you wern’t effected by it dirrectly, doesn’t mean that the knowledge of terrorists being able to strike our homeland like that shouldn’t worry you. And since 9/11 was wrong in terms of our society and govt., seeing as how the US’ main goal is our protection, it becomes a very good idea in terms of our pleasure as a society to rid the world of people who are likely to do this sort of thing. Ie: the war on terror. Im not plugging Bush here, as far as I can tell, he screwed up with this war on terror, but I think you understand that we should be upset and afraid because of 9/11, thats perfectly natural. It was a tradgedy, in terms of our society. But in terms of the islamic people it was a wonderful day. They arn’t wrong to be happy, they are doing what they are going to do. Knowing that… Its the US government’s job to not let them do what they do. Not becuase those islamic people are evil and wrong, but becuase they hurt us, and just like in nature, when an animal gets hurt, it retaliates, and for good reason. Cause and effect my friend, its how I see the world work, and the better we get at understanding this causality in the natural universe, the better off we are going to be.
Hmmm, I know you wanted to make this a discussion about your views on relativism, but I just needed to clarify on the issue of 9/11.
Here you say that the US was right to retaliate when the terrorists struck, but I just want to make sure that you know why the terrorists struck in the first place… and just to make sure of your answer, it wasn’t because they hate democracy or that they were envious of american freedom or because the western world is loose with our morals, it goes far beyond that…
Anyways, back to what this is really about. I read over your views and I have to say that they are quite intriguing. Not to say that I agree with all of it, but it does provide a view that most of us don’t necessarily see.
Hmmm, you know, I can’t help but relate back to the film Donnie Darko when I read over what you say about pain and pleasure. Just as you lump up life in either “fear or love” I don’t think you can do the same for “pain or pleasure”. Now I will agree though, mankind is driven towards pleasure. There are not many of us who can say that we do not, and those who say they do not (as in your example of the man who chooses not to masturbate for religios reasons), these individuals then give up physical pleasure for an alternative form of pleasure, such as spiritual, religious, or psychological.
This is where I go back to the pain/pleasure point that I don’t necessarily disagree on, but that just doesn’t sit right with me entirely. You see, every action in life has a consequence that is both good and bad (or pleasureable and painful). I personally wouldn’t take the 1,000,000 dollars, despite the fact that could greatly benefit from it (being a poor university student lol). I would choose not to, simply because I want to strive in my own life. In essence, I want to work for my pleasure, but in order to do so I have to endure pain. Will this create a ‘greater’ sense of pleasure to me? I have no clue. But then there must be a reason behind my decision that would make me think so. Either way, the result will be both pain and pleasure, no matter what my decision would be.
Frankly, I have a very neutral view of the universe. I believe that with every action taken, there are both positive and negative consequences that will keep the equation neutral. You can choose any action that has happened in the past, and you will be able to find both negative and positive consequences from the act. You may say that some actions that occurred had a more “negative” or “positive” outcome, but if you look at how the event had altered so much of the present, you can then see how I have come to this neutral outlook on life.
Anyways, there’s my life philosophy in a nutshell. I hope you will entertain some of my questions or read over my views on your views
As far as I can tell man, 9/11 happend because of a radical form of Islam. The whole problem as I see it is that these radicals are not rational and logical. They believe certain places are theirs by religious laws, that no other religion is allowed in their “holy” places, they believe the US stands for something evil, and thus must be an enemy of Islam. Basicly, they rely too much on their religion to dictate their actions, rather than being rational and logical, and trying to understand this world of causality as I suggest. Im sure we have done things to Arabic countries, but you must agree that they were being least logical about their actions. I am firmly confident whatever we were doing to them, even if it might offend them, we had much more reason/logic to do what we were doing than they had for getting that offended. As far as I know we wern’t willfully comiting genocide. They will never be able to legitimize their actions in my eyes because they will always refer back to religion. I see them the same as one of those christian lady’s im sure youve heard of that let their children die by praying instead of taking them to the hospital. Sometimes religion just gets out of hand in terms of it’s effect on the world’s overall pleasure, and I believe it has to be eradicated in those cases. I dont know if this is what you want, and dont take offense at this, but if you wish to try to legitimize the actions taken by Islamic radicals across the world, Ide be glad to have a political/philosophical debate.
About you not taking the 1,000,000 dollars, all I have to say is, try being lazy and have everything given to you, ie: steal the money, then if you dont like being rich without having to sacrifice for it, give the money to me. I may be totally wrong, but I think youde warm up to being rich for free. Either way, you will be doing what you feel brings you the most pleasure. I can relate your ideal of working for your pleasure to a close freind of my dad’s. He is the third richest man in Russia, worth about 3 billion, and he could have retired years ago and had more money than he could possibly spend in a lifetime. Yet he goes on working, becuase its what he loves. Not the physical pleasure associated with all the money he has, but the intelectual pleasure of achieving the goal of making money. For whatever reason, that goal means alot to him, and I would bet the goal of working hard for your pleasure is very important to you as well. And thus you feel you need to feel pain to realize just how hard you are working. Thats fine, and I guarentee you that if I worked my ass off, and became rich, ide feel much better and have had so much more pleasure than if I had stole it. But the reality is that getting that rich is unlikely, even for super hard workers. Thus just by probability, knowing that money is good, and knowing it is unlikely I will be able to work up that much money, ide be extremely logical in stealing it.
About positive and negative consequences, I would agree, but the only consequences that should matter to us are the ones that effect us, quite obviously. If you felt bad about your pleasure becuase it meant there was equal pain being felt somewhere else in space or time, you would be a vegetable, and do absolutely nothing.
Hey Russiantank, Anytime I can give out my opinion I’m only too happy to oblige… I even have to admit that I do it even if it isn’t wanted sometimes
Hmm, as for the whole terrorist issue, I feel that the western world can be Ethnocentric sometimes. We rationalize our actions through what seems to be practical, however, can be misleading or uninformed decisions sometimes. Now, this isn’t to say that it’s only the western world, just that when it comes to ignoring our own guilt in matters, we seem to excel at it.
You have some truth to what you said about the issue, but there is a great deal that is missing from the equation, information that I don’t even know about. If you ever take a look at why there are third world countries, or why some countries seem to hate the west, you have to look past the pre-concieved notions that “we are seemingly more sophisticated or civilized”, take a step back from the situation, hear out both sides of the problem, then see why conflict has occurred. In our societies, we value wealth. In other parts of the globe, they value spirituality. Neither is wrong or right. However, if you look back into history, you will see why the west is so wealthy and the east so poor, and frankly, we’re the ones at fault. These things didn’t occur naturally, we made things the way they are. Over time, the west has leeched off of the sweat and blood of the east in order to obtain more wealth. In essence, in order to create the most ‘pleasure’ in our lives, we have made so many lives ‘suffer’. This was all achieved through global conquest, slavery, and deception sadly. So then, does “Might make Right”? Personally, I don’t believe so, and I’m not alone in this. If you read any writtings from Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, they painfully illustrate how those in power achieve wealth through some of the most dispicable acts, then cover their tracks through justification. What you’ll find, is that the past is littered with hypocrites who say one thing and do another. Hell, these people still exist today, such as the conservative cabinet in the US under Bush’s authority.
So what does this all have to do with terrorists? Just about everything. I believe that Iraq one of the first to oppose Western domination in the past few decades. The US is one of the powers that restricts the middle East from flourishing. Through government restraints, the west resumes it’s dominance in the global economy because, let’s face it, we’re all greedy. Why share the wealth when we can have it all? Think of the products you buy, the clothes you wear, or the gas you use to run your car. Where does it all come from? Why is it that we can afford these luxuries while other countries struggle to feed and provide shelter for their own people? Then ask how this all came to be. It is because of us, the west, spreading all the way back the very creation of North America… the colonization. I’m sure that if you read up on these issues, and I mean really dig up the info on what -really- happened in the past, you will come to realize that all that we have today was achieved through the most dispicable acts.
Hah, I’m sure that if I got that Million bucks, I wouldn’t give it to you… no offence. I would place it into more constructive venues that try and help out the world… yeah, I guess that makes me a hippie or something lol. But to be honest, I thought the same way (or a similar way) as you a few years back. Then I learned the truth about the world, and it radically changed my way of thinking. I was done being Ethnocentric. Never again would I think that my country was better than any other. I guess a class in Human Rights will do that to you though.
Not too sure if you’re right about being a vegetable though. I think that we’re too greedy in our pleasure. We can still obtain pleasure without having to cause pain to another (or at least to a lesser degree than we are now).
Anyways, what I was trying to get across with this, is that we have to stop thinking that we know what’s best, or we know what’s right. You say that some people are fools in using faith instead of rationalization. I’m not so sure if this is true… and I even consider myself an Empirialist! I don’t think we should go to either extreme, rather, find a balance between the two; maybe even adopt some other forms of thinking to mature.
Night_watch_man18, I realize we have done some horrible things, but so has every other nation, dont you think so. And I would be surprised if you didn’t agree that throughout history, America was at the leading edge of good things. By that I mean more freedom for its people. First of all, democracy, when it came around was by far the best system. There are still serious problems with democracy, but you must admit it is the best government in terms of overall pleasure for the people. Im not saying American democracy right now, becuase I believe some European nations have it better. Amsterdam for instance is really getting the whole pleasure thing down.
Anyways, I dont think America was the first to abolish slavery, but we were right there, women got to vote in good time. Slowly but surely, the Societie’s across the world were evolving, and I believe America was at the forefront of that evolution. And we were at the leading edge of technology and science, which is an indication that we are more aware of the way the world works. You say we leached off the east, but I dont see any such examples in the 1900’s. Sure we had slavery, but so did every one else. Before the UN existed and even now, each nation is out for their own good, and rightfully so. Hey, ide love to have one big united planet, and I think that is something we should strive for, but its impracticle right now, so I cant help but see America and other European powers as a good thing for the world.
Theres a reason my family and millions of others fled from Russia and all over the world to come here. And there is no way my family could have had what it has now if not for capitalism and democracy. Unfortunatly, recently I have noticed America taking some steps in the wrong direction. And no matter where I look, religion seems to be the cause for most of the worlds problems. I dont want to abolish religion in the world, just the religion that encroaches on diffirent idealogies. I firmly believe that the more diverse the people of the world are, the further we are going to undertand our universe, and that inlcudes religion. But when religion causes pain… then we have reason to get rid of it.
I really cant see any good examples of Western domination. Ide love for you to enlighten me. Iraq was a dictatorship, and one that caused a whole lot of suffering. Im sure our embargo’s hurt many people in iraq, but that is politics. If war was an easy option, and we could have quickly swept through Iraq with few innocent casualties and gotten rid of Saddam, and installed a democracy, we would have done it long ago. But until 9/11, we had to be “civil” and use political methods to achieve our goals. I am totally up for going into any country where people are being forced to suffer. Now I know we have people suffering in America, but our whole system is designed to allow for much more freedom to do what we want. Some people get the shaft sure, but in countries like China, and Korea, and Africa where the regimes are designed, maybe not intentionally, to inflict suffering, I would love to see a powerfull democracy go and make things better. This ofcourse is impracticle.
So I just fail to see how we restrict the middle east from flourishing. What restrictions did we put on them? Sure we maybe looked out for ourselves and used politics for personal gain. But thats capitalism. We didn’t steal anything did we? Give me some examples, because I just don’t see it that way. I see it like this. We all have problems, but America and other democratic powers always were and still are good for the world in terms of the whole world’s pleasure, compared to other nations. Thats my statement, and I will argue for it, but I just dont see any examples in history that would suggest otherwise…
russian, im not the most knowledgable about this, but i feel its imperative somebody say something. america and the west were pure evil for a long time. we basically enslaved the entire world until recently. through our enslavement, we built our concentrated little nations up with high tech factories and business training and thats how we got to where we are today. at some point we realized that we should be nice or else our slaves wont work for us at all. by the way, i think the US was one of the last to abolish slavery, by a few decades.
but i think that once the west got its momentum going, with all the high tech factories and infrastructure paid for by the slavery of the world, we had firmly positioned ourselves at the top, and no third world country can possibly get to where we are unless they enslave other nations or get tons of help from us. i think the great america that was created by the beginning of the 20th century that was allowed to work without enslaving other nations was possible only because, up until that point, we had been enslaving other nations. and besides, we totally still do practically enslave those poor asians.
Future Man, slavery was a trade, it has been around since the begining of time. The egyptians enslaved the jews, the british enslaved africans just like us, I can look up hundreds of other examples. Point is, we wern’t doing anything any other nation that could wasn’t doing. Give me a nation that is the model, the one that did everything right in your mind. Theres no such nation. But are you telling me that if you had to pick the best nations, America wouldn’t be near the top of your list? Im not saying America didnt do “evil” things. But we were definatly one of the lesser evils in the world. Sure, there were nations that couldn’t do these “evil” things becuase they wern’t rich enough, or whatever reason, but you must know that they would if they could. It was the way the WHOLE world worked, not just the “Evil American Empire” Everyone that could colonize did, everyone that could participate in the slave trade did. Now consider this. If America and all the European nations other than Germany didn’t get as powerfull as they were by whatever “evil” means, what would have have happend in WW2? “HAIL HITLER” is what would have happend. Power is not neccisarilly a bad thing, it can be used for conquest or protection. And about the poor assians, I don’t see how we are practicly enslaving them?
Just to pick nits; there has been some excellent research done on how humans perceive color. Most cultures have between 2 and 11 different words for primary/main colors, and were one a relativist, one would see ample room for subjectivity.
However, in every culture studied that has only 2 words for colors, those 2 words always correspond to white and black. Moreover, when given a color chart, they always divide the chart the same way, lightish to white on one side, and darkish to dark on another.
ok, fine, perhaps light vs dark is easy to accept. However, in every single culture that had 3 colors the third color was red. In addition, members of 2-color cultures were able to learn to identify red more readily than any other color. These individuals all selected more or less the same group of colors on the chart to indicate red.
What does this mean? Some aspects of human perception are not relative; the rods and cones of the retina and visual center of the brain recognizes certan color groups. So, for humans, colors (or color groups) -do- exist. They are a grouping of certain wavelengths of light, and are not culture or language dependent. They represent our innate sensitivities to certain wavelengths.
(For more, see Stephen Pinker’s “The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language”)
Color doesn’t actually exist… Wavelengths do… Color is just a perception. Every human happens to have very similar perceptions of light. But if you eliminate the observer, all you will have is lightwaves and objects with pigments that only allow a specific type of light to get through. Just like sound, color is only in our heads. Sound is nothing but particles vibrating. Taste and touch are nothing but the way our brain percieves signals sent from our tounge or hand to our brain. Our senses are only perceptions of the “real world” the objective reality.
Heres a site that uses the same research as you, but comes to my conclusion that “there is no colour out there”
humans see certain wavelengths as fitting into the aforementioned color groups. The fact that other species (or humans with defects) do not is irrelevant.
For a moment, Pretend that instead of saying: “my that is a nice fire engine red,” people said: “oh, thats reflecting some nice 650 nm”. We still interpret it as red. The light wavelength is 650 nm; calling it red is just shorthand.
One does not have to be aware of this fact for it to be so.
Just think though, if Hitler had prevailed, we would think he was one of the greatest men on Earth, because had he conquered, he would have been the supreme. The media would reflect his vision. This happens with every culture, especially our own. We don’t see the bad side of things, because we hear mostly about the good. When someone -does- discover one or two negative aspects, we justify it by saying “well look at all the good we have done though”, and just gloss over the negative. So instead of playing “cowboys and indians”, children would play “nazis and jews” where the nazis were the good guys.
Media has a strong influence on what we view to be a good thing. Just think about my example of cowboys and indians. If you look at the real history, Christopher Columbus -isn’t- the hero he’s been made out to be. Western settlers came to these lands and made treaties with the millions (make a note of that… MILLIONS) of indigenous people that once lived off of these lands. Once the colonizers could take care of themselves with the help of the natives, they then turned sides and began the biggest act of genocide that this world has ever seen. By then end, only 91% of the original inhabitants of these lands were alive (a higher “kill-total” than any war or combination of wars has ever created… ever). If that wasn’t bad enough, the colonizers then turned the remaining people into slaves. If THAT wasn’t bad enough, they then formed residential schools to assimilate this people. They stole children away from native homes, raised them to be more Western, and then created a social-genocide to try and destroy the culture. All the time saying that these people were savages and NEEDED to be taught how to act civil, through rape, physical abuse, psychological abuse, and even death as punishment for being “disobediant”. You say this is all in the past… just take a look two decades ago, it was happening then. “If you can’t beat them, make them join you”… that should be the real catch phrase.
You don’t see how we are enslaving the asian countries? Obviously you haven’t seen working conditions in the factories. If someone falls ill or becomes too old (not by our standards of old, more around 30ish) these people are replaced. What caused the illness? The working conditions. The type of work they are being exposed to. The 50+ hours a week they have to work in order to survive; meaning food/water and shelter. These are the new forms of concentration camps. Then we say that we are helping these people get jobs, we’re doing ‘good’. Amazing that when you consider one of these companies, such as Nike, where they give away cash to sports teams and pro’s like Tiger Woods enough money in a day that it would take one worker 1200 years to accumulate. Just so that they can endorse their product. Tiger doesn’t even have to work for Nike, he just has to wear a hat with a little swoosh on it so everyone knows. The man was being paid 55,000 a day. That’s just ONE person. Is that not sick in some way? I think so. Instead, Nike could have been providing better pay or working conditions for the thousands of workers they employ over-seas. But then, that would be ethical and not profitable.
That’s what our society has become though, consumed by greed. It has been imprinted on our very way of thinking to the most basic of thought. Greed has caused so much pain in this world, but we have come to think it is one of the best ways of living. Grow up, get a job, buy a bunch of shit you don’t need, and you’ll be happy. We have to step out of the construct that has been laid down in the foundation of our being, created off of the blood and sweat of slaves and people that we take advantage of in this world, and begin to come back to our very human spirit. I’m not talking about religion when I say spirit, I mean that we need to grow back our empathy that our ancestors threw away centuries ago. Think in a whole new way.
It’s hard. I thought the same way as you did a few years ago (from what I can tell about your perspective of the world), I’ll admit it. Hell, we all think that way. Then I came to University. I had an empty spot on my schedule, saw a Human Rights course, thought it’d be interesting. It truly opened my eyes to life. I only wish I could share that with people, but it’s something that can’t happen without going through all the work, all the reading, all the lectures that I sat through. I couldn’t believe I fell for all of the nonsense that I was raised to believe, but I knew no other way of life.
Either way, we obtained all this wealth through devious acts. We shouldn’t stand for it just because it happened so long ago. We shouldn’t continue living our lives the way they are being lived now, just because it seems to be working for us. In all honesty, superficially it seems to be, but it is doing an equal amount of damage at the same time, and not just to other countries, but to our own countries as well. Why should we have people suffering in poverty in our nations, when we have the jobs available. The problem is, that we have shipped them over seas so that the top 1% can make a greater profit, instead of giving our own people the low paying jobs. The reason why we do this, is because in our contries, we’re accountable for our own workers. We have to pay them a certain amount, we have to give them certain benefits, we have unions that protect our workers in our countres. They do not. So we continue to make more money. We continue to let them suffer, so we can pay 50 bucks for a pair of jeans instead of 55 dollars (that is, if the top 1% wish to keep their profits the same).
Anyways, I’m going to end my rant now lol. But trust me, we think we are living a ‘good’ life with how things are going now, but we could be living a much ‘better’ life if we stopped thinking with our wallets and started thinking with our brains.
If Hitler had prevailed, I wouldn’t be thinking at all, seeing as how Im jewish. But either way, I definatly don’t think we would think of Hitler as a great man. Most people throughout history havn’t taken kindly to being ruled by foreign nations. But you miss my point. The point is that it is essential for countries that wish to survive in this world to seek power, for protection. Conflict is INNEVITABLE. If we wern’t greedy, somebody would be, and they would attempt to take power, and we would suffer for it. For a governemnt to be succesfull in its #1 goal, that being the protection of its people, it has to be able to keep up with the rest of the world. I am not using this as justification for doing terrible things, but you must understand the concept.
I agree we screwed the Native Americans. For many years. But the people of the time really were convinced they were doing the right thing. And no one other than the Native Americans thought anything wrong was happening. That was the state of the world back then, becuase if the majority of people didn’t agree with what we were doing, democracy would have forced these views. Luckily, our “morals” evolved, and are still evolving. And they evolved because we began getting a better understanding of our world. Even now we are trying to get past this wall of predjudice, again, mostly born from religion, directed towards gays. But that isn’t the point either.
Our distant past is really irrelivent becuase the whole world has been evolving socially. And guess what, at some point, we evolved out of colonialism. We realized that our pleasure was not worth their pain, and so the world together decided to outlaw it. But if no country had taken advantage of colonialism in the past, and there were no super powers such as the US, Russia, and other European nations, anti-colonialism would never have been taken seriously. In the US I see power being used appropriatly, and this could only occur in a democracy, because a democratic govt. reflects the social evolution of its people. The US and every other democracy stand for something to strive for all the non-democratic nations. Democracy in general increases the potential for pleasure for its people. I personly (I think ive said this before) have a better idea for a govt. Im not going to get into that, but im just making the point that democracy isn’t the end all be all. Its the best weve got though. And my idea for a govt. relies on the hope that we will evolve further towards logic and reason, and that evolution can only occur through democracy.
As I see it, the power struggle throughout the world’s history was innevitable and neccisary. From the power struggle arose the jugernaughts, and through their aquired power these nations were able to learn more about our universe. This knowledge brings evolution of society, and sets an example for other lesser nations to follow. This power is also used to protect the world from opposing jugernaughts that didn’t realize that getting along was better than forcing your way, ie: Germany. America has done alot to lead the world into better times. And seeing the incredible turnout in Iraq on election day affirmed my belief in America’s benefit to the world.
I believe radical religion and nationalism are the last bastions of pain in the world. I believe a major conflict with radical Islam is in our future, and I hope the religious right wing will lose its hold on America. I just hope we will all get smarter, and start to really understand that we should all just seek happiness, and that governments are here to facilitate that happiness.
Now to the asian people being enslaved, I just dont understand what we are doing “wrong”. How can american companies force people to work? We only offer jobs to them… If the economic state of affairs in china is so bad that they have to work in such miserable conditions, thats chinas fault, not ours. And you may suggest that we shouldn’t take advantage of their situation, but instead offer them good conditions and better pay, and try to make their lives better… Well maybe you are a nice person. But we are not forcing our will upon anyone. If I wish to be selfish, but I dont steal or hurt anyone around me, then if it makes me happy, so be it. As long as I am not encroaching on any one’s rights. Isn’t that the point of capitalism? So would you argue against capitalism, becuase that would be a futile argument. History has shown us it is the best system we have. Communism cant work, what else is there?
I say you’re right in the fact that you probably wouldn’t be here if Hitler had prevailed. What I was saying, is that if he had succeded, he -would- be viewed as a great man simply because everyone who would be alive in the world would be part of his vision. I’m not for Hitler, but I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have been, if the media (which is controlled through our governments) had supressed all the negative news about the war and supplemented it with all the positive aspects of Hitler… “hey look, we have unity now. Hey, we all share a common vision. Thank Hitler, because he ‘influenced’ the oppressors with the mighty power behind the Swastica. We are the dominate force, so we are right.” Sounds awfully familiar to how we view our actions of our past. “It may not have been good, but we’re better off today.” Are we really?
You say that our morals are evolving. I agree to some extent, however, we are committing the same acts of violence and discrimination that we were hundreds of years ago. Instead of referring to the Native people as savages, brutes, etc… how do we view the Iraqi people? I’ve heard my fair share of terms, favorites being, “towel heads” “dirt monkeys” and best of all…“Sand Niggers”… can you believe that? But why do we do this? (Not saying you or I say these things, but I know that a lot of people use demeaning terms to refer to the people of the middle East). We do this to place ourselves above them. This is the same tactic that we have been doing since the 15th century. This is how we first begin to justify our actions, by saying that we “know what’s best”, slant our negative views of our society so that we don’t feel as bad, then usually become hypocrites through our own actions. Come on man, I’m sure I don’t have to give you examples of these too, you already know them (or at least I hope you do).
I agree with you on some levels though (we aren’t complete rivals, lol). I mean, had it not been for the negative acts of our past, we wouldn’t have the positive after-effects of our present and future. And we improve on these by seeing what we have done wrong, and changing them. If we are as evolved as you say we are, then I think we should realize that we have made mistakes in our past, and we should improve on the negative after-effects of today. We still have a lot of evolving to do. Yes sir, isn’t that the truth. We can make our first steps by evolving, and realizing that we do have a dirty hand in topics such as “Employing Third World Countries”. You say that we are passive in the matter, we are only giving them an option. Heh, if only the picture were that colourful. No my friend, we are much more aggressive in the matter than you would like to believe unfortunately. I haven’t learned all there is to know yet (considering we have only touched on this subject for about two weeks in my Human Rights course as of yet) but we are very much responsible for aiding in the construction of Asia’s market and need for jobs. It’s impossible for me to show you how this is by only focusing on the small picture, by looking at the influence our big companies have in the world. It isn’t just one or two things that carry responsibility for the abuse and use of Asia in our labour markets. It is built on a whole construct, a whole history of various events where sadly, we had a large influence to create the system today.
Hmmm, if you’re a fan of reading, I would suggest you pick a book (or read some articles) done by Howard Zinn (not sure if I mentioned this already, but I’ll do it again just in case). He’s the one who has painfully gone through the research and personal experience of war and the labour market. I have zero experience in the field, other than being a consumer, and now a student on it.
…speaking of which, I have to go to class Heh, running late as usual!
Capitalism seems like a good idea, but when intertwined with Consumerism (which they go hand in hand with), may not be so good. Sure we are wealthy, sure we can find a lot of pleasure today… but what about the future? What about our health? As far as I have seen, when you consume, you make waste. Right now, the environment isn’t exactly doing so hot right now. So, do we simply rationalize that “although things are bad now, if we continue on this path, we can create the technology to undo the damage”, or do we simply find alternate ways of existing without the need of killing ourselves and the planet we live off of as a species.
I think you’re missing the point of the quote… although he may seem to be a man on the outside, as in physically, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is a man mentally or spiritually. You know, “You can’t judge a book by it’s cover” type of thinking?
This quote just simply states that if a physical man is unable to make a decision, he is not a man at all, but perhaps a mere child.
pps:
lol). I would choose not to, simply because I want to strive in my own life. In essence, I want to work for my pleasure, but in order to do so I have to endure pain. Will this create a ‘greater’ sense of pleasure to me? I have no clue. But then there must be a reason behind my decision that would make me think so. Either way, the result will be both pain and pleasure, no matter what my decision would be.
I may be totally wrong, but I think youde warm up to being rich for free. Either way, you will be doing what you feel brings you the most pleasure. I can relate your ideal of working for your pleasure to a close freind of my dad’s. He is the third richest man in Russia, worth about 3 billion, and he could have retired years ago and had more money than he could possibly spend in a lifetime. Yet he goes on working, becuase its what he loves. Not the physical pleasure associated with all the money he has, but the intelectual pleasure of achieving the goal of making money. For whatever reason, that goal means alot to him, and I would bet the goal of working hard for your pleasure is very important to you as well. And thus you feel you need to feel pain to realize just how hard you are working. Thats fine, and I guarentee you that if I worked my ass off, and became rich, ide feel much better and have had so much more pleasure than if I had stole it. But the reality is that getting that rich is unlikely, even for super hard workers. Thus just by probability, knowing that money is good, and knowing it is unlikely I will be able to work up that much money, ide be extremely logical in stealing it.
