The Strong See Brutalizing the Weak As Their Prerogative. Only the…

Homepage Forums Politics The Strong See Brutalizing the Weak As Their Prerogative. Only the…

This topic contains 54 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Unseen Unseen 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3499
    Profile photo of tom sarbeck
    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    …Only the Weak, by Cooperating, Can Stop Them.

    We (and our numerous cousins) are descended from blue-green algae, aka cyanobacteris, aka pond scum, who engulfed (ate) their weaker neighbors. From time to time, some of the weaker disposed of a stronger neighbor and reproduced.

    We know where today’s stronger are. Will we cooperate to stop them?

    #3502
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think the planet is going to evolve to become more nerdy, because of my new “rational religion“.  The nerds of the world are going to be into it, if only because it’s somewhat like mathematics, except it’s small and complete.  This means that the nerds are going to out-thrive other groups, therefore the species is going to evolve to become more nerdy.  Nerds are peaceful by nature: they settle everything through rationality rather than dick-waving.

    #3503
    Profile photo of tom sarbeck
    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    Dream on, Simon.

    #3504
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @tom – that’s not very rational.

    #3519
    Profile photo of tom sarbeck
    tom sarbeck
    Participant

    @simon – I hope you will explain how I verily transgressed a rule of rationality.

    #3520
    Profile photo of PopeBeanie
    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    This means that the nerds are going to out-thrive other groups, therefore the species is going to evolve to become more nerdy.  Nerds are peaceful by nature: they settle everything through rationality rather than dick-waving.

    I agree, this would be awesome!

    So, where da women at?

    #3535
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @pope beanie – “where da women at?

    – this is just a conjecture, but it may be possible that this involves some broad overall differences between men and women.  I believe it’s true that, in the words of Kathy Burke, “women are just as orrible as men”.  But I think it’s also true that whereas, arguably, men relate to life more in terms of competition, or alternatively, intellectualising, women tend to see the world, and solve problems, more through cooperation and relationships.

    Regarding the original question, I think the long term answer is to change the game entirely.  Instead of yet another dominance contest, perhaps we would all be better off if we knew how to cooperate better.

    To this end, if there is a rational moral philosophy available, then we can target our actions more effectively.  This moral philosophy has some surprising properties, such as, the rate at which it grows and becomes more profound and more sophisticated very quickly, you just feed it a few facts and it generates new insights which then become incorporated into the main body and used to produce new insights.  So it grows very quickly, like some kind of developing brain, that demolishes uncertainty wherever it goes.  If one person (me) finds this, then if it is distributed among the world’s nerds and boffins, it has the potential to really take off and also it will always be cutting edge as it will always be generating new insights as required.  This can only be a positive move.

    #3536
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @tom – “I hope you will explain how I verily transgressed a rule of rationality.

    – you didn’t give any reasons why I was wrong.

    #3538
    Profile photo of Arcus
    Arcus
    Participant

    I think you have, unwittingly perhaps, created a paradox.

    Since you start with a dichotomy – that one is either weak or strong – then the weak cooperating will make them strong. And since the strong see brutalizing the weak as their categorical prerogative, they will then proceed to do just that.

    That also fits quite well into the history of so called “people’s revolutions”. The oppressed become the oppressors.

    #3539
    Profile photo of Tom Sarbeck
    Tom Sarbeck
    Participant

    @Arcus-political combat, usually over economic issues, is not a philosophy or political science or history classroom.

    #3540
    Profile photo of PopeBeanie
    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    So it grows very quickly, like some kind of developing brain, that demolishes uncertainty wherever it goes.  If one person (me) finds this, then if it is distributed among the world’s nerds and boffins, it has the potential to really take off and also it will always be cutting edge as it will always be generating new insights as required.  This can only be a positive move.

    I agree this could happen and I appreciate your work on it… as long as it can somehow maintain openness to self-examination. I’m afraid there probably is no “formula” (moral, egalitarian, or utilitarian) that will work well in every case. (Unless of course you intend to become God! Oh, and probably female. Just imo.)

    #3542
    Profile photo of Arcus
    Arcus
    Participant

    @Arcus-political combat, usually over economic issues, is not a philosophy or political science or history classroom.

    “Political combat”.. Now there’s a Clausewitzian inspired expression if I’ve ever seen one. Why such militarized language?

    #3545
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @popebeanie – “as long as it can somehow maintain openness to self-examination.

    – I agree, this is necessary.  It seems that human rationality is a social process.  When we make sense, it’s for the purpose of making sense to others.  This examination, and discussion, is part of the process of true rationality.  It’s how we progress.  This is why Think Atheist, or Atheist Zone, is useful – we get to discuss things.

    In fact, if this is the “atheist bible”, then you’ve pinpointed the main differences between this and a religious bible.  1) this one is always growing and expanding; 2) this one grows through a worldwide discussion, because, basically, it’s a science.  It’s similar to mathematics in that it consists of logical reasoning about facts (including facets of human experience, such as psychology).

    I’m afraid there probably is no “formula” (moral, egalitarian, or utilitarian) that will work well in every case.

    – people might be surprised.  There are certain things that are universal to the human condition.

    #3548
    Profile photo of Tom Sarbeck
    Tom Sarbeck
    Participant

    @arcus asks, ‘Why such militarized language?’
    I’ve been there. Try it some day.

    #3549
    Profile photo of Simon Paynton
    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @popebeanie – “as long as it can somehow maintain openness to self-examination.

    – in fact, the whole idea is that you don’t just write any old thing – it has to be shown to be correct.  This is in the very nature of philosophy – it’s an enquiry into truth, which involves painstaking examination.  There’s an ongoing peer discussion and review, and a working consensus, just like science or mathematics.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.