why the strong can love the weak:

Power is achieved when many weak forces combine into a stronger force.
Power is also achieved when many weak beings cooperate and become strong together.
Armies can defeat single man alone.
Being rich means you gain money from many other people, often people less rich than yourself.
Political power requires many followers and cooperation.

Human power consists of the weak.
Therefor the strong can love the weak, for this reason aswel as for other reasons.

Although I agree with your sentiment, I have to keep aware that “Love” is not about what a person can obtain for themselves, but rather what they see and choose to support in others for the sake of others.

The strong should be supporting the people. Those people might be weak at that moment or might not be. The strong should not be supporting their weakness, but rather their potential.

A human conscious should support the health of every cell in his body because it is by their combined potential that the conscious survives at all. But more importantly is that the conscious, just as the strong, is a product of the much weaker who gathered and cooperated so as to form a stronger and more perfect union.

It is not the “Survival of the Fittest”, but rather, “Survival of the Fitted”. That which stays in harmony, CANNOT perish. Science has proven it.

One of the things I have come to realize that I think is important to understand has to do with psychopaths.

I believe they are, in a way at least, nature’s decision/response to the human condition in the sense that, through these people, we actually learn the limits of what the majority of people see as ‘natural morality’ – instincts like ‘killing is wrong’ and whatnot. We see these people as unnatural, but they are produced through nature (which has tons of death and cruelty) so the reasons, I think, are something we should consider when dealing with morality. I hope to show how these people actually aid in our understanding of a ‘proper’ morality.

Consider Dr. Robert Hare’s findings:

I remember reading a fictional story which pointed out a real life truth: All of our advances come through the arguably wall-to-wall lunacy exhibited by what are mostly psychopaths that have gravitated to high level military/government positions. The arms race, the cold war – these are the things that push us further towards our technological, and thus intellectual limits. If you look closely at many philosophers (Russell, to point out a rather glaring example) they are themselves full-on sociopaths, ‘unfettered’ by conscience – I mean to say that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Psychopaths may be a latter of sorts in our evolutionary climb. I do not see them as long-term archetypes, but rather, as I said, a sort of transitional propulsion.

In other words, while it seems right now like we are in a world-wide tyranny from which we may never get out, if we can make it through this stage we will move on towards moral considerations which is comprised by the limits of the cold, machine-like logic possessed by psychopaths, and then also the psychic empathy exhibited by saintly altruists of a degree in which to demonstrate it’s (divine) efficacy over the centuries.

It is making more and more sense why everything is so nuts in the world right now. The psychopathic run is coming to an end; it is, however, mostly reliant on the general population to see the forest from the machine, and to remember that failure to keep enough of a balance will result in our total extermination. The psychopaths are there to teach us a lesson: lead us for a period of time while we figure the things that they can’t figure out, out. If we let them actually totally enslave us then we didn’t learn the lesson.

Man has not escaped the grips of insanity since his very inception. The homo sapien is a primitive beast, barely aware, fumbling into survival by almost sheer accident. I suspect that he will never become sane before he is merely replaced.

Sanity == knowing right from wrong.

It’s struggle that drives us - as you rightly say, war, the space race, and so on - these provide the “big picture”, the story that is necessary for the ruling classes to divert funds into technology. That demands that they do. I don’t see this as transitional, for as long as humanity retains its fondness for big pictures, explanatory frameworks, simplicity and dogma.

Russell’s a pretty poor example of a sociopath, mind; he may have had his own ideas about marital fidelity, but he was prepared to go to prison for his social beliefs - and his various students and proteges generally report him as avuncular and interested. I don’t think sociopathy is particularly a mark of philosophers so much as politicians - philosophers seem if anything to be introverted and unworldly, to the point of painful neurosis.

Things aren’t much more nuts now than they’ve ever been. The technology and tools are more effective, maybe. I don’t see humanity ‘growing out’ of anything any time soon, in any case.

Just out of curiosity, what leads you to come to this conclusion? You don’t have to go wild, but just explain why you think this.

Maybe “ever” is a big statement, my knowledge of history isn’t that comprehensive. :stuck_out_tongue:

We have globalisation - the Victorians had that too, in a eurocentric industrialisation sense, and far more entrenched and virulent. We don’t have the cold war any more, or the Nationalist Romanticism of the turn of the 20th century. We have lessons from the 20th century about the dangers of totalitarianism; the world’s a lot less confusing and vulnerable a place than it was ninety years ago, at the moment. There’s broader but less deep education, lots more information available to most people.

There are dangers, of course - precisely in the nature of information available to people and who controls what; the rise of strong cultural conservatism to modernisation; the corporatisation of society (which is in itself a hangover of enlightenment liberalism) and so on. But I don’t think it’s much more nuts than it’s ever been. The past looks simple because of hindsight, we can put it in context in a way we can’t in the present. We can explain the mistakes and celebrate the successes from our vantage point of more information. But at the time, the past was the present, and it was pretty nuts.

Why do you think it’s more nuts?

The exponential rate of technological progression is limited not by social/public knowledge, but by private propulsion. That curve we all talked about in the late 90’s didn’t become false, rather we simply started to tell ourselves that private industry is and was waiting for us. It’s not. I think it’s more nuts now than ever because the technology that is running rampant behind the scenes is running rampant.

Chemical weather manipulation
RFID DUST as a part of this
Genetic Crops
Etc.

It’s a shitstorm. I don’t mean to sound arrogant but I think it will be hard to convince me otherwise.

Due to that exponential technological increasing behind military doors where they get to see everyone else’s invention yet never show their own over the past 70 years, if the US military were to truly turn loose with all they have (which hasn’t happened since WW2), anyone on Earth would think that God Himself had shown up on the battlefield.

Or aliens, or the anti-christ.

Whatever the figure, I’ll be willing to bet he’ll/they’ll be for a tyrannical world government somehow.

Thank for bringing up these issues OG. I used to have a great fascination in learning about psychopaths through film and literature: The Bad Seed, Wicked Angel, East of Eden, and so on. The psychopath is basically the human monster without a conscience, so s/he could do anything without feeling guilt. I suppose our sociopaths are a bit similar. I think that we are inclined to call our real-life psychopaths “sociopaths,” and the fictional ones “psychopaths.”

I love watching the evolution of the characters of Spock and Data in the Star Trek series. There is a way that each of their journeys involved integrating human emotions into their minds and behavior. Spock resisted it a bit more than Data. I find Data to be one of the most appealing and loveable characters on the show, by the way. That character was both brilliantly written and virtuosically played by Brent Spiner.

I assume by Russell you mean Bertrand Russell, yes? I don’t know why you would consider him a sociopath. He was no such thing, a thoughtful pacificist of conscience all the way. (unless it’s a different Russell you are referring to, let me know).

I would agree that sociopathic corporatism is the ruling energy in the world right now, and it is in the process of destroying all large life forms. This energy appears to be very strong, to the point that humans cannot resist it and reverse the damage it is doing. I get the feeling that conscious human life on this planet is going to come to an end; but with that end, there will be new beginnings both here and elsewhere.

I hear from the guru types that this is an energetic spiritual transformation. I have also heard that certain energies run their course and then make way for new energies. Maybe that is what’s happening. It’s very difficult to watch from the perspective of an emotional human being with conscience, though; but it’s good to get a more spiritual perspective as well.

I don’t think strength can exist without weakness. I mean this both in the most literal sense, as antitheses, and also on a structural level. Nothing is simply ‘strong’ altogether – strength, like power, comes at a sacrifice. To exercise one’s power, is to also expose a weakness. I think the two have a necessary relationship, so we all experience both sides of the coin, so to speak. So, while we revere strength, we also empathize with weakness.

Additionally, I think many strengths are born of a recognition of weakness, and weakness as a consequence of over-indulgence in a strength.

For instance, I kind of picture it like a boy that is afraid to fight. He feels intimidated and shy in company with others because he is unsure of himself. He gets picked on for his lack of assertiveness and such, so he withdrawals into something creative. That creativity becomes a great strength to him, but at the sacrifice of his social skills. So, perhaps, he eventually gets fed up and trains to fight. In doing so, he spends much time and effort, but eventually conquers his fears and is able to stand up to his peers. However, now he has sacrificed his relationships because never took the time to focus on simply being comfortable among his peers. He forgets his creative talents and focuses more on becoming an extrovert. The more he focuses on one side, the less attention he pays to the other.

Weakness and strength do not exist as polar opposites as it seems on a superficial level, but more as a balance. Perhaps it simply depends on one’s environment, influences, desires, and focus. We create our own balances individually, but identify with those of others because in being strong, we can empathize with the weak opposite, and, in being weak, we revere the strong opposite.