I have no idea how I'm going to say this without coming off as more right than hitler. This post is probably a very bad idea but, fuck it, I'ma stick my cock in the grinder and see what happens
So what I want to talk about is weak v's strong. Why do the strong survive? Why do the weak get shit on? The answer to this is simple. Firstly the strong survive because no one can fucking stop them. That's pretty much it. There's no mysterious force at play here, no divine fuckery stacking the deck. If you're strong enough to deal you deal. Conversely, the weak get shit on because they can't do anything to stop it and there isn't always a benevolent strong person nearby to hold their little handie. Sucks to be weak, I guess.
There's always someone bigger than you. You can't be the strongest but there's always someone weaker than you too. You don't have to be able to outrun the lion, just the fat guy next you. Truth be told you don't even have to run, the lion will go around you to get to fatty, just so long as you look like you'll make his lunch a bit harder to come by. Strength can be a deterrent, just as weakness can be an invitation.
Strength comes in many forms. There's physical strength, mental strength, emotional strength. There's probably another couple of basic types of strength that I haven't noticed or thought about and then there's subsets and amalgamations of these. Strength is a complicated business. Weakness is equally complex. Someone physically strong may be an emotional and intellectual cabbage. Stephen Hawking may be physically useless with a mind and a strength of character that could cut diamond.
As a race we tend to admire strength, albeit begrudgingly, with a dash of jealous in a lot of cases. No one, tho, to the best of my knowledge, admires weakness. Collectively however, we seem to do a fuckload to encourage it. Why is this? Why aren't the strong yelling at the weak - "stop being a fucking maggot and sort yourself out"?
You see strong aint necessarily something that you just get handed at birth. I've heard a lot about "privilege" on this board lately. Well let me tell you about privilege. Sure you might be born lucky, rich family, silver spoon and all the trimmings but that isn't the only way to gain privilege. Not by a long shot. Privilege can be earned. Privilege can be fought for. Privilege can be fucking taken.
Speaking as someone who used to be weak, I can attest to the fact that strength and privilege are things you can gain. Things you can change in yourself.
"But it's not as simple as that. It's really hard. I'm not the kind of person who can do that"
If I've heard this shit once, I've heard it a million times. It's something that is said exclusively by weak people and, every time I hear it, I just want to punch them in the face. Be careful with that shit, cos I've got the muscle to follow through on that.
1) It is as simple as that
2) It's probably even harder than you think it is - when did I say it was easy?
3) You become the kind of person who can do it only after you get off your lazy weak ass and get the fucking thing done
Strong people complain in a slightly different manner - "This is doing my fucking head in. I will not be beaten. I don't give a fuck how long it takes, I'm not leaving here until I've kicked it's ass"
So here's the deal. Fuck the weak. I can't help feeling sorry for them but, at the end of the day, the only one that can do anything about their situation is themselves. That might not be strictly true, strong people can help but why should they bother if the weak aint going to? Weak is lazy that way. Weak is self defeating. Weak is whining about it "not being fair" and insisting that the solution is the whole world changes.
I used to be that person. Somewhere along the line I figured out that, regardless about how loudly I whined like a bitch, I couldn't change the world. I did manage to change myself, tho and you know what? From a position of privilege, the world aint all that bad the way it is. It's the weak who are having a tough time of it.
Fuck 'em!
In theory this sounds alright, the problem would be who gets designated as "weak", thats when shit can get crazy pretty fast.
"wer der untermenschen?"
This whole explanation you propose can very well used to justify why people are in bad situations "Well, THEY'RE weak, they DESERVE it", which is a posture i cannot emphatize with.
The decks are stacked, people can be "weak" because of the context, the history, and the institutionalized privileges.
Im not accusing you of anything, but if you provide concrete examples of who is "weak", we can get this ball rolling.
In my perspective, for people to be "strong" they need support to nurture it, 'cause one will not oppose an imposition if he knows for sure hes going into the meatgrinder.
Also: is might equal to right?
I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.
I agree to a point. There's some things I don't know what to make of, though.
Rush Limbaugh is weak. He's got a weak obese body and a weak pill-addled brain. But if he made a public appearance and somebody stronger gave him enough shit, they'd be tackled by goons and dragged off to the gulag. So Rush has strength in goons, but who put him in that position? That's where the strength is. The combined effect of millions of screaming yahoos and some media execs and maybe a think tank or something.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
Also: is might equal to right?
I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.
Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.
As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!
Rush is kind of the battle flag that the redneck army carries on its march; prolocutor.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 20, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
I agree to a point. There's some things I don't know what to make of, though.
Rush Limbaugh is weak. He's got a weak obese body and a weak pill-addled brain. But if he made a public appearance and somebody stronger gave him enough shit, they'd be tackled by goons and dragged off to the gulag. So Rush has strength in goons, but who put him in that position? That's where the strength is. The combined effect of millions of screaming yahoos and some media execs and maybe a think tank or something.
I think you've just highlighted one of those types of strength that I mentioned not having thought of - strength in numbers? Tactical superiority? Economically fortified defensive position/ offensive platform?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
Also: is might equal to right?
I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.
Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.
As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right)
Its basicly an argument for social darwinism; this use of "right" alludes to "law", not morality.
And its not just screaming about it if you are opposed to this worldview, groups and individuals can actually oppose, just so it seems so far, not too efficiently. There is a huge difference between acknowledging what is happening and thinking it should be that way.
And well, you did not provide examples, so its hard to examine the practical applications of what you are saying and its implications.
Pent, i would really recommend you read those wikipedia articles i linked, im not sure you want to be associated with those ideas.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
Also: is might equal to right?
I know most of the world runs this way, but i refuse to legitimize it.
Depends on what you mean my right. Personally I'm of the opinion that there is very little (if any) empirical right or wrongness. A lot more of it is opinion than we might first assume. For this reason I try not to think in terms of right and wrong. Whether you refuse to legitimize it or not, it's the way things are and that's what you have to deal with. You're either playing the game according to the way it works or you're screaming "no fair". Right and wrong, in this sense, are irrelevant.
As for what constitutes a weak person? Off the top of my head I'd say the two biggest red flags for me are an ineffectiveness in most situations and a fuckton of excuses for why this is the case. This warrants further investigation, tho. Good question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right)
Its basicly an argument for social darwinism; this use of "right" alludes to "law", not morality.
And its not just screaming about it if you are opposed to this worldview, groups and individuals can actually oppose, just so it seems so far, not too efficiently. There is a huge difference between acknowledging what is happening and thinking it should be that way.
And well, you did not provide examples, so its hard to examine the practical applications of what you are saying and its implications.
I get this. The point I'm making isn't about right and wrong. I have morality. I will step in and prevent a weak person being persecuted by a strong one but morality needs strength to succeed, the weak guy, unless the strong guy steps in is going to get beaten up and his lunch money taken.
What I'm getting at is the sort of underlying physics of the game, not the rules, if that makes any sense? Regardless of what your opinion is of how things should be, unless you have the strength to make it so, there's a fair chance it'll be the opposite. This is not right and it isn't wrong, it's the just the way it is.
Right/wrong and strong/weak might end up looking like one of those political compass grids.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
I get this. The point I'm making isn't about right and wrong. I have morality. I will step in and prevent a weak person being persecuted by a strong one but morality needs strength to succeed, the weak guy, unless the strong guy steps in is going to get beaten up and his lunch money taken.
What I'm getting at is the sort of underlying physics of the game, not the rules, if that makes any sense? Regardless of what your opinion is of how things should be, unless you have the strength to make it so, there's a fair chance it'll be the opposite. This is not right and it isn't wrong, it's the just the way it is.
So in other words what you are saying is:
"Opression is bad and im against it, but to fight opression one needs strenght (power)." ?
I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.
And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.
For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.
Power manifests itself in very different ways.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.
And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.
For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.
Power manifests itself in very different ways.
Heh, I chose "strength" as opposed to "power" solely because I carry many more negative connotations of power but, yeah, terminology aside I think we're talking about the same thing.
What I criticise as weakness or lack of power isn't necessarily the weakness or lack of power in and of itself (everybody has to start somewhere) it's wilfully hanging onto that state and insisting that you shouldn't have to change, the world should be a different way, that pisses me off. That's where you cross the line into "deserves it" as far as my sympathy for you is concerned.
So being a passive "dreamer" hippie type is what you condemn? I can get down with that.
What i dont accept is the notion of "deserving it"; surely passivity can throw me into a rage-froth, but i know there's a reason behind it, and with a wide enough perspective and understanding of the situation one can see the reason which isnt so apparent.
For example, religion. I take it as a sort of emotional weakness that they cannot tolerate their life having no intrinsic meaning or value, or that them and their pet wont make it to heaven, so they build this whole dream or hope on an afterlife and a benevolent universe created by a benevolent intelligent being.
Not everyone has enough solace in their life to support/maintain a worldview without God; i probably have enough solace so that i dont need to drift into fantasy land regarding that, maybe i was born smarter, maybe those ideas were disproven by my particular experiences, who knows?
Saying/thinking "they deserve it" just legitimizes feeling good or indifferent about other people's misfortune.
"Hey man, the drug war in Mexico sure is shitty, but the population deserves it for not doing anything about it"
"Surely total war is awful, but we deserve it for allowing it!"
etc, etc, etc
"Deserving it" also probably a bad choice of words. There are connotations of rightness and wrongness.
If you step off a cliff, you will fall toward planetary mass with an acceleration of 10 meters per second, per second do you "deserve" that? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
No recording angel, just cause and effect. No punishment for immorality, just dumbassery. :lol:
All very good points. Any social system may try to bring some level of balance to the idea of strong vs weak... but in the end every social system will have flaws and weak points that the strong/powerful will exploit. So while fighting for social balance may have value, we still must consider the real world issue of these exploitations and how to protect yourself from being on the receiving end of that exploitation.
Fighting for what you choose to believe in and fighting for yourself aren't mutually exclusive.
Regarding OP, this is reminiscent of a certain Anton LaVey and the "weak vs. strong" stuff that permeated his writing. Ultimately, the entire Satanism thing was a very Discordian put-on, which is still mindfucking teenagers to this day, and which I approve of for that reason. So framing it in that way Satanism, like the positions P3nt takes in the OP, is basically Discordianism with all pretense of an overarching theme of "goodness" and "altruism" removed.
It's kind of hard to come to terms with that when we live in a world where there is more than just "weak vs. strong" at play. There is the Consortium of the Strong as well -- the Status Quo, which does actively conspire against both the Weak and against the Strong when they don't join it. However "strong" you may be on your own, if it is the position of the Status Quo that you are not Membership Material, you will be shit on.
For example, Frederick Douglass was no doubt among the strongest men of his day, and he did achieve a good measure of respect and admiration and a certain degree of exception to the prevailing political thought. But because of his race, there was an absolute limit to how much privilege he could earn; and every shred of privilege he earned, he did so at twice the cost and twice the risk of any white man. So you can't really say "eh, either you're weak or you're strong, whatever" and leave it at that. Sometimes being strong isn't enough, even if you're stronger than most, because the culture around you is hostile to you.
Having said that, I think the general tone of the OP is accurate. People do need to quit playing the victim card as much as they do, and that goes for everyone, not any one particular group of people. In general we like to pretend that our failures are someone else's fault, just as we like to pretend that our success was entirely our own doing. The self-centered "what about ME" thing is played out in my opinion.
It is worth noting that "Through Adversity, Strength", the Satanic axiom, has led pretty directly to some pretty distasteful ideology that passively approves of and actively promotes sexism as well as racism. Just look at all the people in charge of The Church these days. Those guys are absolute DICKS.
OSHI-sexism.
Anyhow, I agree that they share a certain something with Discordians. I saw quite a lot of it when I first found this place. But then, there's a lot of other stuff as well.
What about mental deftness? Is that a strength?
Satanism has applications for membership, and it charges a fee, thats retarded.
And founding a "religion" or whatever they call themselves in something they dont actually believe exists, really? They are like MADJICK atheists that want to hog negative attention.
"OMG IM SO EDGY IM A SATANISTS, LOOK AT ME, FUCK YOU"
Quote from: Alty on August 20, 2012, 06:32:07 PM
It is worth noting that "Through Adversity, Strength", the Satanic axiom, has led pretty directly to some pretty distasteful ideology that passively approves of and actively promotes sexism as well as racism. Just look at all the people in charge of The Church these days. Those guys are absolute DICKS.
OSHI-sexism.
Anyhow, I agree that they share a certain something with Discordians. I saw quite a lot of it when I first found this place. But then, there's a lot of other stuff as well.
What about mental deftness? Is that a strength?
I don't want to get on a tangent about Satanism, but the only thing most Satanists are good at is
being Satanists. Their writing sucks (even LaVey's wasn't that good - including the stuff he plagiarized), their style sucks (I heard a few of them discovered Brown and the Steampunk look was invented), and their philosophy would suck if they had one that went beyond "lol I bet this'll piss off my parents." I tend to put the
original shit from LaVey in a category completely unrelated to the Church of Satan (or it's hundreds of one-man spin-offs), because if you actually read what he was saying, "Satanism" was just a front for a philosophy that blows over the heads of most of these "Satanist" assholes.
As it relates to this discussion, yes, this kind of thinking
has led to some distasteful things that passively (and in some cases actively) promotes sexism and racism, and a number of other numb-skulled shenanigans. The underlying philosophy is not necessarily to blame though, because it never claimed to be an interpersonal, large-scale philosophy. It is one which is intended
exclusively for the Individual. That a bunch of people get together and decide to be "Satanic" together is even more ridiculous than a bunch of people deciding to be "Discordian" together (over the long-term in a communal sense). That it leads to terrible things when that people try it is hardly a surprise.
"Im a Satanist, because it sounds cool and edgy, and because nobody knows who Max Stirner is."
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 11:48:02 AM
What I criticise as weakness or lack of power isn't necessarily the weakness or lack of power in and of itself (everybody has to start somewhere) it's wilfully hanging onto that state and insisting that you shouldn't have to change, the world should be a different way, that pisses me off. That's where you cross the line into "deserves it" as far as my sympathy for you is concerned.
But that's a type of power in and of itself. Critiquing the current system of affairs and presenting them as immoral is one of the more powerful gambits one can deploy, if successful. People like to see themselves as good and moral, and presenting your situation in such a way allows for you to win both active advocates and passive supporters.
Nietzsche showed this perfectly when he dealt with what he saw as the reversal of values under Christianity. And Foucault would no doubt add that resistance is, in and of itself, paradigmatic of the strategies of power.
The only truly powerless position is the one which says "do nothing at all". Everything else is a matter of degree, effectiveness and context. Is this particular strategy useful in this setting? Would this be more effective? What are the potential downsides?
Power involves every possible strategy for controlling one's environment and distribution of power within a society. Only someone who refuses to play that game entirely is removed from power.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
Satanism has applications for membership, and it charges a fee, thats retarded.
No good sir, That is genuis.
Every version of a satan entity I can imagine involves thousands and thousands of fucking forms, each more arcane and semicolon riddled than the last.
I can think of no finer representation of Satan than Bureaucracy and
charging for the privilege.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
Satanism has applications for membership, and it charges a fee, thats retarded.
Also, by your logic, the Church of the Subgenius
isn't Satanic at all. And we know better.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 20, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
Satanism has applications for membership, and it charges a fee, thats retarded.
No good sir, That is genuis.
Every version of a satan entity I can imagine involves thousands and thousands of fucking forms, each more arcane and semicolon riddled than the last.
I can think of no finer representation of Satan than Bureaucracy and charging for the privilege.
"NO! SATAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE A METAPHORES FOR OUR INNER DESIERS!!1" :nigel:
Unfortunately, charging idiot children cash for membership in an individualistic religion is a rather deep seated inner desire.
It feels like some kind of public warning service or something.
You seem to be mixing a lot of dichotomies here.
You start off talking about strength versus weakness, but veer into privilege versus lack thereof, luxury versus want, security versus vulnerability.
Those aren't all the same things and range from loosely related to not in any way remotely related. Hard to address the topic when it's many topics conflated like this.
The Order of Nine Angels has you praise Hitler as part of the initiation ceremony.
I personally find it amusing a group which is so focused on "success" and "self-mastery" at any cost would idolise an emotionally unbalanced fool who lost so badly his entire country was brought to the edge of ruin, and his political ideology almost entirely discredited in public.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 20, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
Unfortunately, charging idiot children cash for membership in an individualistic religion is a rather deep seated inner desire.
It feels like some kind of public warning service or something.
Public warning services are fun.
(http://www.talesofcuriosity.com/v/GunPowder/i/HeadSpikes.jpg)
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 20, 2012, 07:10:55 PM
You seem to be mixing a lot of dichotomies here.
You start off talking about strength versus weakness, but veer into privilege versus lack thereof, luxury versus want, security versus vulnerability.
Those aren't all the same things and range from loosely related to not in any way remotely related. Hard to address the topic when it's many topics conflated like this.
It seemed to flow logically for me.
I assume the gist of the point boils down to, at least in part, playing the victim card. I'm sure that all (most) people will agree that a frail old woman who gets punched in the face and has her purse stolen didn't "deserve it" just because she was not physically stronger than her assailant. (I know there are varying degrees of strength other than physical, that just an easy example). Rather, it's the people who get trampled on or allow themselves to be trampled on, then just "woe is me" like a fish out of water, flopping around waiting for someone to scoop them back in. As was mentioned, blaming everyone but themselves for their problems.
Yes, there are physical, mental, societal, etc. conditions that may hold one back, but to give up without even trying when there are opportunities to better oneself or to try to make change, whether on an individual or larger scale - "deserve it" is still a tough phrase, but, it does lessen my sympathy.
On a slightly related note, while having a conversation online with a friend, I recommended that she may not want to indicate that she is willing/able to perform certain tasks for a job she is interviewing for, when she is in fact not willing/able, as it would not be fair to the employer, who would likely let her go once they figure out she can't/won't perform the job she was hired for. She told me that it is a "cold hard world" and she's has to do what she needs to get by, while in the same breath complaining how unfair everything is and how everyone should be making special accomodations for her. I didn't want to completely alienate her, so mostly just laughed to myself
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 12:12:22 PM
What i dont accept is the notion of "deserving it"; surely passivity can throw me into a rage-froth, but i know there's a reason behind it, and with a wide enough perspective and understanding of the situation one can see the reason which isnt so apparent.
Relevant all over the place.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 10:03:45 AM
In theory this sounds alright, the problem would be who gets designated as "weak", thats when shit can get crazy pretty fast.
"wer der untermenschen?"
This whole explanation you propose can very well used to justify why people are in bad situations "Well, THEY'RE weak, they DESERVE it", which is a posture i cannot emphatize with.
The decks are stacked, people can be "weak" because of the context, the history, and the institutionalized privileges.
Im not accusing you of anything, but if you provide concrete examples of who is "weak", we can get this ball rolling.
In my perspective, for people to be "strong" they need support to nurture it, 'cause one will not oppose an imposition if he knows for sure hes going into the meatgrinder.
This.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 20, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
Satanism has applications for membership, and it charges a fee, thats retarded.
No good sir, That is genuis.
Every version of a satan entity I can imagine involves thousands and thousands of fucking forms, each more arcane and semicolon riddled than the last.
I can think of no finer representation of Satan than Bureaucracy and charging for the privilege.
:lulz:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 20, 2012, 07:10:55 PM
You seem to be mixing a lot of dichotomies here.
You start off talking about strength versus weakness, but veer into privilege versus lack thereof, luxury versus want, security versus vulnerability.
Those aren't all the same things and range from loosely related to not in any way remotely related. Hard to address the topic when it's many topics conflated like this.
Also this.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 20, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 12:12:22 PM
What i dont accept is the notion of "deserving it"; surely passivity can throw me into a rage-froth, but i know there's a reason behind it, and with a wide enough perspective and understanding of the situation one can see the reason which isnt so apparent.
Relevant all over the place.
Yup.
More on that point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:34:10 AM
So here's the deal. Fuck the weak.
The Machine
TM already does that. It doesn't need my help.
Thoughts on OP - "Life sucks, wear a hat." and "Fuck off if all you will do is whine." Good read too, this really got me examining how I consider strength vs. weakness, how I see it enacted, and how I enact it myself.
RAW had a bit like this; the strong enforcing their will, and the weak using appeal to morality (doesn't THAT sounds like a logical fallacy) as their recourse against it.
I'm having trouble coming up with a clear idea of "The weak". Riffing off what you said, it seems like the mindset of not solving an issue for yourself, it's making an appeal. Rather than taking on and addressing a problem, it is whining that it was done wrong and insisting it be corrected by someone else.
Character wise, I agree with your statement. Fuck the weak. Wait... No need to, they unfailingly fuck themselves. Trying to help or un-fuck, beyond pointing them in the direction of the land of "DEALING WITH IT" is robbing them of badly needed opportunities to develop gonads.
IRL application I'm finding tricky. Reminds me of the saying "War is like riding a lion" (cool as HELL while your at it, but certain to bite you in the ass when you try to stop.)
richter, RAW got those ideas from nietzsche, slave and master morality
And Nietzsche got those ideas from Lutheran philosophy, or so it has been persuasively claimed by Walter Kaufmann, the best known translator of his work into the English language.
Quote from: Net on August 21, 2012, 12:10:08 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 20, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 12:12:22 PM
What i dont accept is the notion of "deserving it"; surely passivity can throw me into a rage-froth, but i know there's a reason behind it, and with a wide enough perspective and understanding of the situation one can see the reason which isnt so apparent.
Relevant all over the place.
Yup.
More on that point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Yeah, its among the lines of "everything happens for a reason" that X-tians like to use.
Although im not really into all that "cognitive bias" concepts... recently i worked with all the frame work of "attribution theory" that thinks thru the perspective of cognitive bias and, i was shown the "social representations" theory, which actually evolved from all that thinking, and it seems to integrate it pretty well... i mean, all those "biases" are derived from specific experiments, but thats also their detriment, id recommend seeing the thread i made on AI about representations
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2012, 10:34:02 AM
And Nietzsche got those ideas from Lutheran philosophy, or so it has been persuasively claimed by Walter Kaufmann, the best known translator of his work into the English language.
That seems like an odd connection :lol:
Well, Nietzsche came from a long line of Lutheran pastors, and it was initially expected of him that he would enter the same profession. There were also some interesting parallels drawn between amor fati, the will to power, eternal recurrence and aspects of Lutheran thinking by Kaufmann.
Edit: I've also seen it suggested, though I cannot remember by who, that it was Max Stirner, not Schopenhauer, who caused Nietzche to critically examine Christianity.
I meant odd in how those ideas are present in Lutheran philosophy in one way or another... although i basicly only know about the idea of "personal relationship with God with no intermediaries" sort of thing in Lutheranism... funny, 'cause i went to a Lutheran school at some point, but nothing seems to have stuck.
From what i found by reading "The Ego and its Own", Nietzsche was deeply influenced by Stirner's egoism... which in turn, i guess lead N. into the sense of how we should worry about ourselves and not the imaginary pie in the sky.
Anyhow, after years and years of reading and rereading him, the only thing that i deem worthy of N. is his idea of "perspectivism" (believe me, its there, just nobody has taken the time to examine it like the oh so over-analyzed "eternal recurrence" and "nihilism") and the transmutation of values, which are primarly presented explicitly in "Der Wille Zur Macht", his last book that has a lot of controversy to what was modified by his sister...
I need to find myself a revised version of that, my copy is from early 2000's, and i read/heard somebody was coming up with a critically revised version like 4 years ago, they should have finished it by now...
His metaphysical speculations are sadly overlooked in favour of his more provocative ethical and political statements, it is true.
I have the 2000 Kaufmann/Hollingdale translation of The Will to Power, I thought it was pretty decent. Especially since, by far, the largest section of the book deals exactly with perspectivism, epistemology etc, while correcting the malicious editing that Frau Förster-Nietzsche undertook.
I'm not sure there would need to be a more critical version than that, unless you are speaking specifically of a Spanish-language translation, perhaps? Also I believe Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze all took a fair bit from perspectivism, so you may want to read them at some time.
It is a metaphysical speculation, but it has a huge importance regarding ethics and even methodology, thats why i am estranged to why its ignored. In my school we see a lot of subjectivity, barely anything regarding representations, and i think perspectivism would give it an innovative support.
I have the... -looking in RL-... 2000 EDAF version (spanish), but these assholes dont mention on which revision the translation is based on. I was expecting a Collin/Montinari version, thats the one thats supposedly in the works (they should be done by now?)... Ill probably need to import the Kaufmann version in english, bilingual or english bookstores are lacking here.
I read those authors, but theres this one guy i havent: Jose Ortega de Gasset, which also deals with the subject.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.
And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.
For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.
Power manifests itself in very different ways.
Heh, I chose "strength" as opposed to "power" solely because I carry many more negative connotations of power but, yeah, terminology aside I think we're talking about the same thing.
What I criticise as weakness or lack of power isn't necessarily the weakness or lack of power in and of itself (everybody has to start somewhere) it's wilfully hanging onto that state and insisting that you shouldn't have to change, the world should be a different way, that pisses me off. That's where you cross the line into "deserves it" as far as my sympathy for you is concerned.
The whole point of society is to make sure that everyone has the best day possible, whether or not they are strong or weak on that day, or in general.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 20, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
I agree with that statement im interpreting you are making, just id choose "power" instead of "strenght" because "strenght" connotes physical strenght, and thats not what it comes down to always.
And by power i mean the capability to influence a circumstance.
For example, if representations guide practices and actions, undermining/critiquing/deconstructing those representations will have an effect in deligitimizing the practices/actions to a sector of the population. And thats pure words, thinking and communicating.
Power manifests itself in very different ways.
Heh, I chose "strength" as opposed to "power" solely because I carry many more negative connotations of power but, yeah, terminology aside I think we're talking about the same thing.
What I criticise as weakness or lack of power isn't necessarily the weakness or lack of power in and of itself (everybody has to start somewhere) it's wilfully hanging onto that state and insisting that you shouldn't have to change, the world should be a different way, that pisses me off. That's where you cross the line into "deserves it" as far as my sympathy for you is concerned.
The whole point of society is to make sure that everyone has the best day possible, whether or not they are strong or weak on that day, or in general.
Which was the main point Ayn Rand fundamentally didn't understand.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 04:37:30 PM
Which was the main point Ayn Rand fundamentally didn't understand.
Ayn Rand and her followers view life as a race.
Which I guess it is. But the finish line is a coffin, so the amount of shit you accrue at the expense of others is meaningless.
I read some Hungarian professor of theory of justice who claimed that empirical study indicates that freedom is on the way out as the core value of our civilization and human dignity is on the way in. And that one of the main problems with putting human dignity there is that it encourages use of the victim card. Because if you can prove that your human dignity is being infringed, you can get your way.
I think equity is actually one of the first social technologies (along with ritual and meditation). Recent research suggests dogs are in on it, it may even be a joint invention between two pack animals (dogs and humans). I don't think we need to talk about right and wrong (in the strong, metaphysical sense), or the convenient fictions we call rights, to see that the invention and widespread application of the notion fairness threw the entire older system of strong versus weak, survival of the fittest (fittest blood-line, that is) into a massive wobbly.
In an individualistic, brutally hyerarchic culture, the weak get weaker and the strong get stronger. But in a culture that has conceived of communal action in the interest of communal fairness, the sufficiently organised weak can keep the strong in check. Bonobos clearly lean towards that style of organisation. Chimps don't. We are a bit of a mix. I hope the bonobo side wins out.
As for the present situation, the weakness you despise in others, Pent, is in most cases learned helplessness. Those people were not born whining losers, they were made so, in most cases unconsciously and, tragically, with the best intentions, but all the more deliberately and systematically. This (that a large part of every generation is systematically turned into culture-dependent whining weaklings who give up their personal efficacy for the safety in conforming), is a great ill of our civilization. And unlearning learned helplessness is no trivial task. Being kind tends to work better than being a cocky bastard. :)
(amazing thread, by the way)
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:22:31 PM
I read some Hungarian professor of theory of justice who claimed that empirical study indicates that freedom is on the way out as the core value of our civilization and human dignity is on the way in.
Yes, no, in that order.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 20, 2012, 09:34:10 AM
I have no idea how I'm going to say this without coming off as more right than hitler. This post is probably a very bad idea but, fuck it, I'ma stick my cock in the grinder and see what happens
So what I want to talk about is weak v's strong. Why do the strong survive? Why do the weak get shit on? The answer to this is simple. Firstly the strong survive because no one can fucking stop them. That's pretty much it. There's no mysterious force at play here, no divine fuckery stacking the deck. If you're strong enough to deal you deal. Conversely, the weak get shit on because they can't do anything to stop it and there isn't always a benevolent strong person nearby to hold their little handie. Sucks to be weak, I guess.
There's always someone bigger than you. You can't be the strongest but there's always someone weaker than you too. You don't have to be able to outrun the lion, just the fat guy next you. Truth be told you don't even have to run, the lion will go around you to get to fatty, just so long as you look like you'll make his lunch a bit harder to come by. Strength can be a deterrent, just as weakness can be an invitation.
Strength comes in many forms. There's physical strength, mental strength, emotional strength. There's probably another couple of basic types of strength that I haven't noticed or thought about and then there's subsets and amalgamations of these. Strength is a complicated business. Weakness is equally complex. Someone physically strong may be an emotional and intellectual cabbage. Stephen Hawking may be physically useless with a mind and a strength of character that could cut diamond.
As a race we tend to admire strength, albeit begrudgingly, with a dash of jealous in a lot of cases. No one, tho, to the best of my knowledge, admires weakness. Collectively however, we seem to do a fuckload to encourage it. Why is this? Why aren't the strong yelling at the weak - "stop being a fucking maggot and sort yourself out"?
You see strong aint necessarily something that you just get handed at birth. I've heard a lot about "privilege" on this board lately. Well let me tell you about privilege. Sure you might be born lucky, rich family, silver spoon and all the trimmings but that isn't the only way to gain privilege. Not by a long shot. Privilege can be earned. Privilege can be fought for. Privilege can be fucking taken.
Speaking as someone who used to be weak, I can attest to the fact that strength and privilege are things you can gain. Things you can change in yourself.
"But it's not as simple as that. It's really hard. I'm not the kind of person who can do that"
If I've heard this shit once, I've heard it a million times. It's something that is said exclusively by weak people and, every time I hear it, I just want to punch them in the face. Be careful with that shit, cos I've got the muscle to follow through on that.
1) It is as simple as that
2) It's probably even harder than you think it is - when did I say it was easy?
3) You become the kind of person who can do it only after you get off your lazy weak ass and get the fucking thing done
Strong people complain in a slightly different manner - "This is doing my fucking head in. I will not be beaten. I don't give a fuck how long it takes, I'm not leaving here until I've kicked it's ass"
So here's the deal. Fuck the weak. I can't help feeling sorry for them but, at the end of the day, the only one that can do anything about their situation is themselves. That might not be strictly true, strong people can help but why should they bother if the weak aint going to? Weak is lazy that way. Weak is self defeating. Weak is whining about it "not being fair" and insisting that the solution is the whole world changes.
I used to be that person. Somewhere along the line I figured out that, regardless about how loudly I whined like a bitch, I couldn't change the world. I did manage to change myself, tho and you know what? From a position of privilege, the world aint all that bad the way it is. It's the weak who are having a tough time of it.
Fuck 'em!
Having only read the OP I will state that I have no faith in the strength of one who spells
though without the second half of that word.
Other than that, I don't care about this subject. Be nice to those weaker than you or I will be not nice.
Kinda interesting to revisit this trainwreck of thought. Thanks for the bump. I still hold the conviction of the OP but I feel it's badly worded. Badly framed in terms of weak and strong. Too many connotations of physical strength, that's not what I'm about. Whiners and fighters maybe? People who accept their lot in life v's people who yell "Fuck this!" and kick the doors out?
I can't really blame the whiners for their whining, either. Any more than I can blame a paraplegic for being hit by a bus. Conditioning is something that happens to you. Some work out you can slip the trap but it's a trick, if they don't notice, it affects them. Not their fault they didn't notice, any more than it's blind luck if they saw through it but it pisses me off nonetheless.
This conviction I have that if there were less whiners and more fighters, it'd be cooler. Maybe not. Maybe world war three. Maybe whiners are necessary to balance the "Fuck this - kick the doors out mentality" Or else there'd be no doors left on their hinges?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 06:41:39 PM
Kinda interesting to revisit this trainwreck of thought. Thanks for the bump. I still hold the conviction of the OP but I feel it's badly worded. Badly framed in terms of weak and strong. Too many connotations of physical strength, that's not what I'm about. Whiners and fighters maybe? People who accept their lot in life v's people who yell "Fuck this!" and kick the doors out?
I can't really blame the whiners for their whining, either. Any more than I can blame a paraplegic for being hit by a bus. Conditioning is something that happens to you. Some work out you can slip the trap but it's a trick, if they don't notice, it affects them. Not their fault they didn't notice, any more than it's blind luck if they saw through it but it pisses me off nonetheless.
This conviction I have that if there were less whiners and more fighters, it'd be cooler. Maybe not. Maybe world war three. Maybe whiners are necessary to balance the "Fuck this - kick the doors out mentality" Or else there'd be no doors left on their hinges?
It's not the whiners that are the problem, though. They're just annoying.
The problem is with the complacent.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 06:41:39 PM
Kinda interesting to revisit this trainwreck of thought. Thanks for the bump. I still hold the conviction of the OP but I feel it's badly worded. Badly framed in terms of weak and strong. Too many connotations of physical strength, that's not what I'm about. Whiners and fighters maybe? People who accept their lot in life v's people who yell "Fuck this!" and kick the doors out?
I can't really blame the whiners for their whining, either. Any more than I can blame a paraplegic for being hit by a bus. Conditioning is something that happens to you. Some work out you can slip the trap but it's a trick, if they don't notice, it affects them. Not their fault they didn't notice, any more than it's blind luck if they saw through it but it pisses me off nonetheless.
This conviction I have that if there were less whiners and more fighters, it'd be cooler. Maybe not. Maybe world war three. Maybe whiners are necessary to balance the "Fuck this - kick the doors out mentality" Or else there'd be no doors left on their hinges?
It's not the whiners that are the problem, though. They're just annoying.
The problem is with the complacent.
That is so right.
Hmmm, yeah, you could be on to something. Is this a spectrum, maybe? Do the complacent fall in the middle? Strong enough to bear it without whining but hardly strong enough to do anything about it?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Hmmm, yeah, you could be on to something. Is this a spectrum, maybe? Do the complacent fall in the middle? Strong enough to bear it without whining but hardly strong enough to do anything about it?
The complacent would be a subset of BOTH groups. It's the people who would rather keep what they have than rock the boat, no matter how pathetic what they have may be.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 06:45:04 PM
Hmmm, yeah, you could be on to something. Is this a spectrum, maybe? Do the complacent fall in the middle? Strong enough to bear it without whining but hardly strong enough to do anything about it?
No.
The complacent fall at the worst extreme.
They can actually do something about it, but they choose not to.
That makes them less than people, that makes them humans.
when the strong help the weak,
the strong get stronger
the weak remain weak.
maybe