Quote of the Day
Are individuals a means to social ends or an end in themselves?
Is society supposed to serve individuals or do individuals serve society?
Do conscience and reason function at the individual or the collective level?
These are the questions of our time.
Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Posted on X, August 13, 2022
I think the answers are obvious, but these are political philosophical questions I will let you answer on your own.
With power out to about half a million households across the Seattle area, the answers to those questions are going to determine whether someone can share my food, fire and shelter, or they need to move along.
The questions about ‘society’ vis-a-vis the individual were already answered back in the late 1700s.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That there are those who consider that “These are the questions of our time.” simply confirms the indoctrination system our ‘education’ system actually is, has produced a couple of generations of ignoramuses.
Do conscience and reason function at the individual or the collective level?
A truism Tommy Lee Jones said in ‘Men in Black’; answers that:
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
Ya, all political systems have to serve both.
Or they get discarded.
Kind of like what’s happening to communism once again.
THE “social contract,” such as it is normally understood, is (at least, is supposed to be) a two-way system of duties, obligations, privileges, and rights. But it’s predicated on something not everyone agrees with: The existence of God and some “higher power” source of right and wrong. If there is no God, and we are just self-programming meat-robots evolved from the primordial goo, then “what is right” is semantically equivalent to “what can you get away with,” and the psychopaths who simple see others as a means to personal gain are the “smart ones” who are simply good at playing the game of life if they are successful, and the “nice ones” are all chumps and losers.
If there is a God, then that network of interwoven duties, obligations, privileges, etc., can be more properly addressed. You have a God-given duty to help your fellow man (“love your neighbor as you love yourself,”) but you also can expect him to do his best to not be an undue burden upon others in return. You have a duty to pay your taxes, but the government has an obligation to spend your money wisely to help your countrymen. You serve society by being honest, productive, helpful, etc., and society serves you by keeping the various types of evil off your doorstep.
No god, then most “philosophy” becomes utterly meaningless, nothing more than ponderous mental masturbation and posturing.
(it’s also readily apparent that reason doesn’t work in groups).
“God”, as most seem to understand it, regardless of Avenue of Approach, is a Higher Power Not Subject to Compromise or Mediation, an unalterable and uncontestable set of standards with which one may, or may not, choose to deport oneself, with the presumed consequence of everlasting life or condemnation to eternal purgatory awaiting.
Where the deal falls apart is when an earthly power, in the form of mortals who eat, sleep, defecate, opine, and live, exactly like everyone else, who place themselves in the position, or in an only very slightly subordinate, position of God-like authority, but with the obvious fault of being mortal (which they do not like, and pretend otherwise constantly).
No one enjoys being subordinate, whether in their social, family, work, or daily life, but within the social construct of human societies subordination is a given, the only issue of debate being to whom, or what, or within which circumstance. When mortals pretend to be non-subordinate and presume the granting of such position is where the opportunity for real trouble begins, because the construct assumes facts not in evidence, as the legal types say, and the rancor that can be so terribly destructive to order often occurs.
Yes, it was pride that led even the angles to fall from heaven.
Mankind are often following in those fallen footsteps.
And yet many men demanded Kings and leaders to follow, because they are so unsure of themselves, and don’t want to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. “Just following orders” is the cover so many want to hide behind.
Trolling your own audience now Joe?
I think of the questions as tools to sharpen their wits and prepare them for conflict.
Yes.
Embrace the healing power of AND.