About the concept of the masses and the striving for individuality.
I would like to discuss with the members of the forum a few delicate questions:Is there generally a normal definition of the "masses" that are constantly talked about?
Why is it precisely the pursuit of individuality that makes people look alike like two drops of water?
Why does no one openly classify himself as a "crowd", but at the same time strive to rank himself as a member of another group, to become a part of another crowd? Crowds, ostensibly opposing an abstract "gray mass", but in reality a collection of the same people with the same patterns in their heads? In the opposite of which is put the same far-fetched "man of the crowd", a straw stuffed animal with stereotypical qualities, which no one has ever seen, including "nitakoykakfse" ?
Why does the pursuit of individuality make a person a stupid cattle squared?
In what areas can society be divided into "mass" and "elite" and is there any absolute criterion?
Gauguin wrote:
Not in the case of morality. Whoever doubts morality is a priori redneck.
Morality - the accepted in society ideas about good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, as well as a set of norms of behavior arising from these ideas. Wiki.
Tribes in the Amazon, well, or somewhere in hot Africa, still living in the Stone Age and devouring little people not for fun, but only for food for the sake of (cannibals), are probably considered immoral, if suddenly, by some whim (or by an unknown to him the morality of modern man) not to eat a defeated enemy. After all, the meat then disappears, and friends-comrades will remain unprofitable.
Any modern person who doubts the morality of a dense cannibal becomes a cattle?
Soviet and American soldiers, who had witnessed the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis in German concentration camps, often shot the German guards who had already surrendered with their hands up, not understanding the degree of their guilt. Were they moral? Do you doubt it? So you're a cattle too?
American Doctor Death Jack Kevorkian - a propagandist of euthanasia and his deeds? How moral is he? For you, for the relatives of the terminally ill and for the people who are unbearably suffering from pain themselves? Doubt again? What, redneck again?
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos
I knew there was going to be a conversation about moral relativism. This was expected. Your examples (war) are a product of insufficient morality from the start, in my opinion this is obvious. We are talking about Christian morality or (in its secular version) about a categorical imperative.
Vanya Rygalov
Can eating people become a universal law?
Can the shooting of villains become a universal law?
Can the euthanasia of sufferers become a universal law?
Gauguin
Heh. heh ... Well this is so obvious.
Can eating people become a universal law?
Yes, by the general law for cannibals, if you live among these cannibals and on their territory. Or do you prefer to be devoured as a renegade of the ogre code?
Can the shooting of villains become a universal law?
There are slightly different laws in war than in peacetime. Therefore - yes, of course, by the general military law.
Can the euthanasia of sufferers become a universal law?
Of course. But not immediately and everywhere. After all, it was impossible to think about the fact that in some places dad and mom would turn into parents # 1 and # 2 10 years ago.
Universal laws? Are there any? It all depends on the point of view. Heh, heh ... well ... or from the one in whose hands the club is.
But I now know that I am a gray mass that does not stand out in any way, a stupid cattle and a cattle fucker! I am the same as everyone else!
Vanya Rygalov wrote: a
universal law for
... all people. No groups. No ifs and special circumstances. I thought the word "universal" was clear enough, but apparently I was wrong ...
Podvipodvertov
I honestly admit that you are not like everyone else. We have all pissed ourselves off to be honest. You don't.
Gauguin wrote:
... of all people. No groups. No ifs and special circumstances.
Heh, heh .... Dude, it doesn't work that way. This is the real world, not the book world. Groups and special circumstances were, are and will always be, regardless of your preferences. In the same way, there are no universal laws. There are laws of groups and circumstances.
Gauguin
War allows you to show such qualities as courage and dedication. Waging a war against a foreign invasion is a defense, the moral aspect of which is beyond question. A military attack on another state can also be due to some moral principles. Ensuring the safety and prosperity of descendants is a noble goal. To achieve it, it is often necessary to eliminate an external threat. The countries of the Middle East are a factory for the production of terrorists, eternal conflicts and irrepressible rage. In this region, they simply cannot but feel hatred for their neighbors or the Western world. It is impossible to separate the nation from the culture, and the culture of most countries in the region presupposes the emergence of terrorist organizations and explosive individuals, local fun is the detonation of a living culture bearer in a shopping center somewhere in Paris (which is a very brave act that deserves respect among comrades) You can not deprive people of faith, this is the most valuable thing they have. If they are convinced that the Western world is evil and their mission is sacred, then their views and goals will be passed down through the generations. This means that the very existence of this culture and nation is a threat to our descendants. From good motives, one can wage war, I think Peter the Great was motivated not by bloodthirstiness and hatred of the Swedes, but by concern for the future of the country, which, without his acts of violence, could have been so deeply stuck in the Middle Ages that it would have become the end of our history. and their mission is sacred, their views and goals will be passed on through generations. This means that the very existence of this culture and nation is a threat to our descendants. From good motives, one can wage war, I think Peter the Great was motivated not by bloodthirstiness and hatred of the Swedes, but by concern for the future of the country, which, without his acts of violence, could have been so deeply stuck in the Middle Ages that it would have become the end of our history. and their mission is sacred, their views and goals will be passed on through generations. This means that the very existence of this culture and nation is a threat to our descendants. From good motives, one can wage war, I think Peter the Great was motivated not by bloodthirstiness and hatred of the Swedes, but by concern for the future of the country, which, without his acts of violence, could have been so deeply stuck in the Middle Ages that it would have become the end of our history.
Vanya Rygalov wrote:
Heh, heh .... Dude, this does not happen. This is a real, not a book world.
Yes. But this is precisely the reason for the lack of morality and the presence of cattle (vicious circle). And the principle is wonderful.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos
Understand what the problem is - you are describing resistance to evil. This is a moral act. In your example, one way or another there is a cattle (against which the war is being waged). Imagine an example without immoral people at all. It is difficult of course, but you can imagine.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote:
selflessness.
On the part of those who resist evil - certainly.
Gauguin
.... (vicious circle)
Spoiler
SpoilerAll, then, without me.
Spoiler Consider, sho you fended mine.
Gauguin
Can't imagine. The world was born in darkness, and destruction leads to creation. A thermonuclear reaction is a destructive process, games with it took many lives on Earth, but the Sun warms and shines because of it, and will be destroyed for the same reason. Evil and violence have always accompanied life on Earth, this is not just a given, it is a necessity. Our ancestors fought even before they became the current species. The extermination of Neanderthals is the evil that allowed humanity to become rational and come up with morality. Earlier - the death of dinosaurs - a global catastrophe, a natural evil that allowed mammals to acquire a variety of species, among which is our
Philosophers, do you even understand what you are writing? The people do not understand your thoughts.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote: Destruction of Neanderthals Neanderthal
genes are present in the genes of modern Europeans. The Neanderthals fell in love, but the Neanderthals were not given.
I, like everyone else here, pretend to be smarter than everyone. Thus, I try to express my individuality.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos It is
somewhat incorrect to compare natural phenomena with human society. It is clear, of course, that man is insignificant in the face of nature / on the scale of the Universe, etc. But we live in human society, one might say in our "microcosm", and not in "nature".
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote: The
destruction of the Neanderthals is the evil that allowed humanity to become reasonable and come up with morality.
Neanderthals did not have morals, reasonable people do. In my opinion, the chain should have ended there, because why commit violence against those who have morality?
