The philosophy of the weak

[Black Rose]

Hey, this is an INTP forum. The Philosophy forum shouldn't be so lifeless.

why is life so important, does it not presume that affirmation of life is strength of will?

 

[Oblivious]

That may be the case if the argument had an alternative premise upon which it could succeed; however, its sole thrust was the fallacy and thus it was entirely unmeritorious.

What do you care for meritocracy?

Do you believe your argument to be superior?

Your concession that my argument was unmeritorious means that it is to be held above your superior argument, according to your philosophy of failure.

This is not proven and indeed cannot be the case as the argument has clearly not ended since neither person has conceded. Thus, this is unsound.

If you simply think your argument is superior, it also means you believe your argument must fail. The fact that you continue to argue means you believe you must fail.

Do not tell me you cannot see the inherent paradox and self destructiveness of your philosophy.

Your rejection of the philosophy espoused in the OP does not necessarily make you stronger according to that philosophy.

It does not, and I have not said this. Allow me to clarify.

In the eventually that my argument against your philosophy is stronger then your own, my rejection of your philosophy frees me from the burden of believing that my argument must fail.


Thus, I have shown in both outcomes, your argument being stronger or my argument being stronger that your philosophy will fail.

This goes beyond arguments. I have shown that no matter what arguments are made, your philosophy fails.

 

[walfin]

What do you care for meritocracy?

There was no mention of meritocracy. How is this in the least bit relevant?

Unless you mean that there is some ostensible (albeit very tenuous) link to meritocracy since it shares the same root word as unmeritorious, which is just a completely spurious claim.

Your concession that my argument was unmeritorious means that it is to be held above your superior argument, according to your philosophy of failure.

If you simply think your argument is superior, it also means you believe your argument must fail. The fact that you continue to argue means you believe you must fail.

Do not tell me you cannot see the inherent paradox and self destructiveness of your philosophy.

There is no way that saying that your argument was unmeritorious was a "concession". This is a ridiculous use of langauge as it flies in the face of what the word "concession" means. Obviously, if I say that your argument is false, I have not conceded anything.

The OP was about persons, and in relation to persons, wealth, social status and intelligence. There was nothing in it which claimed that unmeritorious arguments are superior to ones which make sense. Clearly, this is a straw-man argument. If you were to extend the concept of persons to other sentient or even merely living beings, that might be sensible. A person cannot be either "true" or "false", unlike an argument.

I have already mentioned that this manner of organising society is simply mimicking what happens in nature, writ large. I have mentioned biology. In physics, there is the concept of damping. When something goes to excess, it is brought low until the oscillation reaches the equilibrium position. In chemistry there is the concept of a dynamic equilibrium when a reaction is reversible. Applied to society this means that when the numbers and power of the strong are excessive society will benefit if they curb themselves by becoming weak. You can disagree with that but your bare assertion that it is a "philosophy of failure", sans evidence, is no stronger than my assertion that it is practicable.

It does not, and I have not said this. Allow me to clarify.

In the eventually that my argument against your philosophy is stronger then your own, my rejection of your philosophy frees me from the burden of believing that my argument must fail.

Thus, I have shown in both outcomes, your argument being stronger or my argument being stronger that your philosophy will fail.

This goes beyond arguments. I have shown that no matter what arguments are made, your philosophy fails.

This is simply so convoluted that it bears no meaning at all.

why is life so important, does it not presume that affirmation of life is strength of will?

No, life is important because the life of even the weak must be valued and protected.

If this thread can cause INTPs to re-examine why this idea is so repugnant to them (and it is clearly an emotional and not merely a logical response, with name calling, fierce denunciations etc.), at least it is something which makes people think.

 

[Oblivious]

There was no mention of meritocracy. How is this in the least bit relevant?

Unless you mean that there is some ostensible (albeit very tenuous) link to meritocracy since it shares the same root word as unmeritorious, which is just a completely spurious claim.

There is no way that saying that your argument was unmeritorious was a "concession". This is a ridiculous use of langauge as it flies in the face of what the word "concession" means. Obviously, if I say that your argument is false, I have not conceded anything.

If you are willing to doom a successful person to failure, dooming a successful argument to failure is simply a matter of consistency.

The OP was about persons, and in relation to persons, wealth, social status and intelligence. There was nothing in it which claimed that unmeritorious arguments are superior to ones which make sense. Clearly, this is a straw-man argument. If you were to extend the concept of persons to other sentient or even merely living beings, that might be sensible. A person cannot be either "true" or "false", unlike an argument.

Then you are being inconsistent.

Arguments cannot be viewed in a vacuum, because they cannot exist independent of persons.

Argumentation is also a faculty of intelligence. The economic worth and therefore social status of certain people, lawyers and salesmen for instance, are based solely on their persuasive ability.

Your distinction is an arbitrary one.

If you fail a person based on his merit, then it means you despise merit. However, it seems that your own merit is exempt.

I have already mentioned that this manner of organising society is simply mimicking what happens in nature, writ large. I have mentioned biology. In physics, there is the concept of damping. When something goes to excess, it is brought low until the oscillation reaches the equilibrium position. In chemistry there is the concept of a dynamic equilibrium when a reaction is reversible. Applied to society this means that when the numbers and power of the strong are excessive society will benefit if they curb themselves by becoming weak. You can disagree with that but your bare assertion that it is a "philosophy of failure", sans evidence, is no stronger than my assertion that it is practicable.

This is meaningless.

Your observation that meritocracy is similar in some ways to evolution has no bearing on its value.

If this thread can cause INTPs to re-examine why this idea is so repugnant to them (and it is clearly an emotional and not merely a logical response, with name calling, fierce denunciations etc.), at least it is something which makes people think.

It is repugnant to me personally because I work very hard at what I do, and you are saying that anyone who simply lays around and gives up is deserving of more.

Anyone with a job who expects better pay for better work would find it repugnant.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You don't deserve shit.

Gonna go OT and talk moral philosophy

I think all beings that experience pain and joy deserve freedom from the former and granting of the latter. It doesn't matter in the least whether they are good or evil or weak or strong, animal or human, simply by their virtue of being capable of feeling they are an instrument to right a wrong.

We know that suffering is bad because we experience it as so inherently, and we also know that we are the same and there is no reason to believe that others do not feel the same, unless you want to go sceptic to the point where you reach solipsism, in which case one really can't say much about anything.

It feels as if though people assume that because the universe was created with suffering that it's a natural part of it, a necessity, the basic rules which we all have to live by etc, and that it thus follows that you're on your own. That's when I wonder how the fuck you discuss moral philosophy by only stating how things are, not what they should be.

Also please take note that I am no naive Hippie, I just think the OP deserves a good life regardless of his idiotic worldview and counterproductive actions.

 

[walfin]

If you are willing to doom a successful person to failure, dooming a successful argument to failure is simply a matter of consistency.

Then you are being inconsistent.

Arguments cannot be viewed in a vacuum, because they cannot exist independent of persons.

Argumentation is also a faculty of intelligence. The economic worth and therefore social status of certain people, lawyers and salesmen for instance, are based solely on their persuasive ability.

Your distinction is an arbitrary one.

If you fail a person based on his merit, then it means you despise merit. However, it seems that your own merit is exempt.

Consistency is not correctness. Going by your logic, I could say that if I am willing to melt ice, melting dry ice is simply a matter of consistency. That would be an absurd result as dry ice does not melt but sublimes. In any case, the philosophy espoused in the OP would have been inconsistent if it made statements with respect to a class and then treated members of that class differently. Arguments are not within the class of persons.

Of course, the contention that the distinction between arguments and persons is an arbitrary one remains. The truth value of logical premises can exist independently of persons. If all persons on earth ceased to exist, the statement, "the earth is a slightly flattened sphere" does not become false simply by virtue of them ceasing to exist, although it could become false as a result of something else, such as a giant meteorite crash. Further, a logical premise, which is an abstract construct, does not exist in the same way as a person, which is a physical entity, does. You can make an argument, but you cannot say that you are an argument (except perhaps in jest). The distinction is clearly not arbitrary.

If an argument is true or is cogent, that does not (or rather should not, since in real life it is the case that perceptions of the strength of an argument can change depending on who it is advanced by) change depending on who makes the argument. I made no claim that arguments advanced by more wealthy/socially respected/intelligent lawyers and salesmen (to use your example) should "fail" in favour of those advanced by poorer/socially disdained/stupider lawyers and salesmen. The claim was that the weaker are deserving of greater protection and that the strong must use what they have to protect the weak, which could, in the case of more able lawyers and salesmen (to use your example), entail using their abilities to persuade to protect the weak. Indeed, the weak should have some measure of social status which is higher than the strong in order to compel or at least influence them to do so. There is no inconsistency in this.

This is meaningless.

Your observation that meritocracy is similar in some ways to evolution has no bearing on its value.

It was not an observation as I was arguing about how things ought to be able to be and not how things are.

There was no mention made of meritocracy. That you have made continuous mention of this despite the fact that this thread is not about meritocracy (there are others which are) suggests that you are not being willing to consider the merits of a theory without filtering it through your own lens, which apparently warps every other moral theory/proposition into an argument about meritocracy.

Aside from that, the biological example I gave was not evolution. I raised those examples primarily to show that if Mother Nature can do it, why would it not be possible for us to give it a try?

It is repugnant to me personally because I work very hard at what I do, and you are saying that anyone who simply lays around and gives up is deserving of more.

Anyone with a job who expects better pay for better work would find it repugnant.

Perhaps you should be taking theoretical propositions discussed on an Internet forum less personally.

Besides, the theory espoused in the OP does not actually preclude better pay for better work. I leave it to you to think how that is possible.

I just think the OP deserves a good life regardless of his idiotic worldview and counterproductive actions.

From a fellow NF? Ouch. Nonetheless, I believe you deserve a good life too.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society.

Is this philosophy based on a judgment call, or is there a line of reasoning?

Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

I'd say more strength, intelligence, money etc provides a person with more privileges, not rights.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why power is wasted on the strong.

I don't understand how it follows that if we are unequal, then power is wasted on the strong.

For there is none that is so in need of power, not for controlling others but merely for their own protection, as the weak. It is the weak, the infirm, the stupid, the outcast, the ones spurned by a cruel and unforgiving society that deserve power most of all, because everyone else can do with less of it and survive.

I'm interested in what you mean by power. I don't think strength, intelligence, beauty, etc can be given to anyone. So, I assume you mean power as in money and/or influence? Wouldn't money naturally go where it is most needed if left unhampered? Those who do the most good for society (including the weak) are the ones who will be rewarded with money. And as far as influence, I don't think the powerful nor the weak should have any, except the influence of their own innovations, which benefit everyone in a free market.

And I am weak. Yes, this is slave morality according to Nietzsche and I am proud of it. What does it matter, that I am weak? It matters a great deal, for I am deserving, all the more, of the protection of the strong.

Protection from who or what?

That if heaven sees fit to give them more, they are behaving unjustly if they do not use their power, or intellect, or strength, or whatever it is they have, for the benefit of others.

Using it for innovation does benefit others. Nobody has a right to the creations of other people.

I want the weak to succeed. I want the strong to fail. I envision a society where the rich give way to the poor and the holders of power are truly the servants of the man in the street. Where a beggar, as of right, is of higher status than a head of state, and where the rich give away so much of their money to gain status by becoming poor that there is no need for taxation.

Individuals have self possession. If this is what you want, then lead by example.

 

[Cherry Cola]

All I get from the OP is that he wants the weak to succeed and the strong to fail. Only problem is then the strong become weak and vice versa and voilá recursion!

I also don't get why the weak should succeed? They aren't better or worse people, they are just weaker.

 

[Oblivious]

I made no claim that arguments advanced by more wealthy/socially respected/intelligent lawyers and salesmen (to use your example) should "fail" in favour of those advanced by poorer/socially disdained/stupider lawyers and salesmen.

I want the weak to succeed. I want the strong to fail. I envision a society where the rich give way to the poor and the holders of power are truly the servants of the man in the street. Where a beggar, as of right, is of higher status than a head of state, and where the rich give away so much of their money to gain status by becoming poor that there is no need for taxation.

This is a contradiction. You have to clarify.

It was not an observation as I was arguing about how things ought to be able to be and not how things are.

There was no mention made of meritocracy. That you have made continuous mention of this despite the fact that this thread is not about meritocracy (there are others which are) suggests that you are not being willing to consider the merits of a theory without filtering it through your own lens, which apparently warps every other moral theory/proposition into an argument about meritocracy.

You indirectly mention meritocracy because your philosophy is the polar opposite of meritocracy, so my usage of meritocracy is simply syntactic sugar.

Perhaps you should be taking theoretical propositions discussed on an Internet forum less personally.

If this thread can cause INTPs to re-examine why this idea is so repugnant to them, at least it is something which makes people think.

I am just doing what you wanted. I cannot speak for others, so I simply use my own experience.

You also have not addressed that under your policies, failure is rewarded, leading to self destruction.

 

[Brontosaurie]

someone had to post this sooner or later

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxPsXPCR5MU

 

[walfin]

I don't understand how it follows that if we are unequal, then power is wasted on the strong.

All I get from the OP is that he wants the weak to succeed and the strong to fail. Only problem is then the strong become weak and vice versa and voilá recursion!

I also don't get why the weak should succeed? They aren't better or worse people, they are just weaker.

Because, as mentioned in the OP, everyone can do with less power and succeed, while the weak need power for their own protection.

Also, recursion is the solution, not the problem.

I'm interested in what you mean by power.

Let's not get bogged down in pesky details like this. Everyone clearly has an intuitive understanding of it.

Protection from who or what?

Why, from the strong themselves of course.

Using it for innovation does benefit others. Nobody has a right to the creations of other people.

This is actually recognised as a problem by the WIPO, which is why compulsory licences for medical patents can be granted to developing countries (which I believe is right).

Taking the principle in the second sentence to the extreme results in the classic problem known as the tragedy of the anticommons. Innovation benefits no one if it is not made freely available or at least available on reasonable terms.

Individuals have self possession. If this is what you want, then lead by example.

I will address this point with an illustration as it has also been raised by Oblivious, although I have already stated that this is a fallacy.

Once, there was a very lazy teacher. The first lesson, he asked the class, "Do you already understand the topic?"

The class answered, "No."

He responded, "Then you are stupid and it is not worth teaching you," and walked out of the class.

The second lesson, he asked again, "Do you already understand the topic?"

This time, the frightened students answered, "Yes."

He responded, "Then there is no need for me to teach you," and walked out of the class again.

The third lesson, he asked yet again, "Do you already understand the topic?"

Some of the bewildered students answered "Yes" while others answered "No".

He responded, "Then those who understand can teach those who don't," thereby absolving himself of all responsibility!

So it is a trap if one accepts the argument that relatively stronger (or, allegedly relatively stronger) persons in the weak class need to lead by example in aiding the weakest in order to convince the strong to do so, because there will always be an answer by way of which the strong can disclaim responsibility and entrench themselves in power.

This is a contradiction. You have to clarify.

"I want the strong to fail" is not the equivalent of "I want arguments advanced by a person who is strong to fail". This is a question of identity - it is not the same entity which is identified.

As explained, an argument has a truth value independent of the person advancing it.

In any case, you have quoted the rest of the paragraph and I believe you understand what "I want the strong to fail" meant in that context.

You indirectly mention meritocracy because your philosophy is the polar opposite of meritocracy, so my usage of meritocracy is simply syntactic sugar.

It is no more against meritocracy than it is against any other philosophy which does not favour or at least protect persons who are weaker. This includes feudalism, democracy (if it degenerates into mob rule), communism (because it also advocates not for the weak to take over the means of production but for the strong to engineer their own failure as a class), and most forms of anarchy and libertarianism as well.

One may or may not have gained wealth and/or social status by merit. Intelligence is certainly at least partially unmerited since it is at least partially heriditary. Regardless, the philosophy in the OP does not distinguish whether you have gained your power by merit or by other means.

Indeed, meritocracy would be seen as a lesser evil by that philosophy than, say, feudalism, since meritocracy allows the weak to succeed if they produce something of value and allows the strong to fail if they do not do so or cease to do so.

I am just doing what you wanted. I cannot speak for others, so I simply use my own experience.

Fair enough.

You also have not addressed that under your policies, failure is rewarded, leading to self destruction.

It is not failure which is rewarded but weakness, otherwise a statement such as "I want the weak to succeed" would not make sense.

If it is hard work that matters, then certainly you would agree that a person with less money/social status/intelligence/<any other conceivable resource> would have had to work harder to achieve the same result, or in the alternative, would have had to find some other means of increasing efficiency to achieve the same result with the same effort.

Regardless, rewarding failure (perhaps by commending failure) or at least not condemning failure may also benefit society (never mind that Cognisant was agreeing with a post by Proxy against the OP):

Indeed, and I think that fear of failure is a serious problem, it seems we increasingly live in a society that idolises the talented, the gifted, the flawless, and treats failure as a lasting taint to be avoided at all costs. So people don't try, they resign themselves to the safety of mediocrity and follow the path laid out for them, blaming their lack of success on not being innately predisposed to succeed.

 

[Black Rose]

"It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"
"It is more powerful than you know."
"And those who oppose it are more powerful than you'll ever be!"
―Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul

A Jedi must protect the weak and defenseless from evil.

Romans 14:14-16
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.

Anything which is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life.

from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, s.259, Walter Kaufmann transl.

 

[Oblivious]

Walfin. It would be much better if you simply started a thread on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state


Rather then this philosophy you got here. This is exactly what you want, but then you unintentionally make all these inflammatory statements that will send even peace loving libertarians into a blood lust.

You dangled a bloody lamb in front of wolves, Walfin. With all due respect, you got what you deserved in this thread. I would suggest reading up on the issues surrounding welfare societies. You need to do this.

"I want the strong to fail" is not the equivalent of "I want arguments advanced by a person who is strong to fail". This is a question of identity - it is not the same entity which is identified.

As explained, an argument has a truth value independent of the person advancing it.

In any case, you have quoted the rest of the paragraph and I believe you understand what "I want the strong to fail" meant in that context.

You should refrain from making statements like that; they are inflammatory. Likewise, I apologize if I have appeared too judgmental.

I just could not really draw the link between paying tons of taxes and failing. Those seem different things to me. A person who pays tons of taxes cannot be said to fail although he could be said to be robbed.

The opening statement is unhelpful and simply misleading.

It is no more against meritocracy than it is against any other philosophy which does not favour or at least protect persons who are weaker. This includes feudalism, democracy (if it degenerates into mob rule), communism (because it also advocates not for the weak to take over the means of production but for the strong to engineer their own failure as a class), and most forms of anarchy and libertarianism as well.

Trust me on this. There is no libertarian living or dead who will endorse your OP.

One may or may not have gained wealth and/or social status by merit. Intelligence is certainly at least partially unmerited since it is at least partially heriditary. Regardless, the philosophy in the OP does not distinguish whether you have gained your power by merit or by other means.

Hah. I did not peg you for a believer in eugenics.

I've always believed talent only helps for the first few steps. Everything else is nothing but hard work and perseverance. Making hard work look easy is also a useful skill.

It is not failure which is rewarded but weakness, otherwise a statement such as "I want the weak to succeed" would not make sense.

How would you differentiate weakness and people who simply wish to 'Play' the game and get the most out of the system for the least amount of work?

Would you really put a quadriplegic blind deaf mute on the land's proverbial throne? Why would you put such a person on a pedestal? Would they want that?

"Oh look at him! He's a good for nothing! Excellent show!"

Regardless, rewarding failure (perhaps by commending failure) or at least not condemning failure may also benefit society (never mind that Cognisant was agreeing with a post by Proxy against the OP):

Have you ever seen a government policy along the lines of:

Homeless people will be shot.
Students getting a D will be flogged.
Jobless people will be sentenced to community service.

No one condemns failure as a policy, except maybe the military. The person in question has already failed no need to rub it in.

 

[Oblivious]

I will address this point with an illustration as it has also been raised by Oblivious, although I have already stated that this is a fallacy.

It doesn't matter if it's a fallacy; I thought we cleared that up. The issue here is that your policies just seem self serving.

Like a pedophile who argues that the age of consent should be lowered to five. Would you honestly take any arguments made by the pedophile seriously?

Yes, an extreme example, but you get the point. Discussion should be objective, but it does not mean you should make it harder for people to be objective.

 

[walfin]

"It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"
"It is more powerful than you know."
"And those who oppose it are more powerful than you'll ever be!"
―Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul

A Jedi must protect the weak and defenseless from evil.

Yeah. I did say this philosophy isn't entirely new. It's at least as old as Jesus Christ.

Walfin. It would be much better if you simply started a thread on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

No, because the philosophy in the OP advocates a dismantling of the strong by themselves, i.e. a voluntary dismantling, caused by them acting in self interest to gain social status by becoming weak, which is caused by the weak having higher social status (now, I don't know how that's achievable, but let's leave out implementation details for now).

You could say that state imposition is a voluntary dismantling of the strong in a way since the state is itself strong, but that isn't quite the same.

The philosophy is not government policy, just like Kantian deontology/utilitarianism is not government policy although it can shape government policy.

Rather then this philosophy you got here. This is exactly what you want, but then you unintentionally make all these inflammatory statements that will send even peace loving libertarians into a blood lust.

You dangled a bloody lamb in front of wolves, Walfin. With all due respect, you got what you deserved in this thread. I would suggest reading up on the issues surrounding welfare societies. You need to do this.

You should refrain from making statements like that; they are inflammatory. Likewise, I apologize if I have appeared too judgmental.

Oh, don't worry about that. With all due respect, I did say the philosophy subforum was in need of some livening up .

I just could not really draw the link between paying tons of taxes and failing. Those seem different things to me. A person who pays tons of taxes cannot be said to fail although he could be said to be robbed.

The opening statement is unhelpful and simply misleading.

This is different from the OP's goal, which is for the rich to give so much away that there is no need for taxation.

Trust me on this. There is no libertarian living or dead who will endorse your OP.

I fully agree. Well, maybe if I pay a high enough price some libertarians might, believers in the unfettered free market that they are.

Hah. I did not peg you for a believer in eugenics.

I've always believed talent only helps for the first few steps. Everything else is nothing but hard work and perseverance. Making hard work look easy is also a useful skill.

How would you differentiate weakness and people who simply wish to 'Play' the game and get the most out of the system for the least amount of work?

Would you really put a quadriplegic blind deaf mute on the land's proverbial throne? Why would you put such a person on a pedestal? Would they want that?

"Oh look at him! He's a good for nothing! Excellent show!"

Well I don't deny that if the philosophy is not practised sincerely it will backfire, with the strong putting up a facade about how sad they are to be strong and how they wish they could have the experiences of the weak which would make them better people, while sniggering at the weak all the while.

But would a quadriplegic blind deaf mute necessarily not want to be head of state?

There are many who want to be head of state, what excludes the weak?

Imagine how much a quadriplegic blind deaf mute could inspire, even if he were not the most capable for the job.

I would also say that meritocracy too is a system that can be gamed. That's when the haves put the cart before the horse and say that they deserve what they have because they must have been capable to have obtained what they did and that conversely, the have-nots deserve nothing. Thereby they impede others who may produce something of merit from surpassing them, which is rubbish because it makes a have-not into a can-not.

Oh, and in any case, laziness is the mother of innovation (you can disagree).

Nope

Have you ever seen a government policy along the lines of:

Homeless people will be shot.
Students getting a D will be flogged.
Jobless people will be sentenced to community service.

No one condemns failure as a policy, except maybe the military. The person in question has already failed no need to rub it in.

Failure is indeed condemned, not in such an extreme way as you mention, but:

Begging is illegal in more than one city.
Students who do badly are restricted in opportunities (there's nothing wrong with them being restricted in what rewards they can get). (In any case, in some countries, students getting a D will get flogged by their parents - consequences are not caused by government policy alone)
Let's leave joblessness aside, but bankruptcy laws in many countries can make things harder for some failed entrepreneurs (if you think that the limited liability corporation is a solution, bear in mind that many financial institutions require directors to give personal guarantees for loans; I believe sometimes even for factoring/discounting).

It doesn't matter if it's a fallacy; I thought we cleared that up. The issue here is that your policies just seem self serving.

Like a pedophile who argues that the age of consent should be lowered to five. Would you honestly take any arguments made by the pedophile seriously?

Yes, an extreme example, but you get the point. Discussion should be objective, but it does not mean you should make it harder for people to be objective.

If you are strong and you are an advocate for meritocracy, I could also say that that is self-serving.

And anyway, I stumbled across that illustration somewhere else on the net and kind of liked it .

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm interested in what you mean by power. I don't think strength, intelligence, beauty, etc can be given to anyone. So, I assume you mean power as in money and/or influence? Wouldn't money naturally go where it is most needed if left unhampered? Those who do the most good for society (including the weak) are the ones who will be rewarded with money. And as far as influence, I don't think the powerful nor the weak should have any, except the influence of their own innovations, which benefit everyone in a free market.

To which is replied:

Let's not get bogged down in pesky details like this. Everyone clearly has an intuitive understanding of it.

AnimeKitty had a rather cutting retort:

"It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"
"It is more powerful than you know."
"And those who oppose it are more powerful than you'll ever be!"
―Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul

A Jedi must protect the weak and defenseless from evil.

Which, judging by your reply:

Yeah. I did say this philosophy isn't entirely new. It's at least as old as Jesus Christ.

Went right over your head. See how Kitty went to the trouble of highlighting those words? See how if you take the aggregate meaning, you get the Jedi defending the Sith from evil?

Reductio ad absurdum

The terms used are ambiguous. Define them please.

 

[crippli]

There is a saying that says the powerful man will lick the beggars toes clean if the beggar is blind.

This means that there is a core of goodness in man, and with effort it can usually be dug up. And the powerful will be servants. The more powerful, the stronger the need to serve, in general. Just don't be canon fodder or something similar. In that case I believe it is preferable to be served.

 

[walfin]

Went right over your head. See how Kitty went to the trouble of highlighting those words? See how if you take the aggregate meaning, you get the Jedi defending the Sith from evil?

Oh. Right. Damn. I feel kinda stupid.

Why shouldn't the Jedi defend the Sith from evil?

Why shouldn't the Jedi defend the Sith from themselves?

Why shouldn't the Jedi defend the Sith from the Jedi too?

 

[Hadoblado]

There is no all encompassing reason that I'd care to detail that they shouldn't.

I guess for it to be a valid proof it requires the hidden premise that Jedi do not protect the Sith to be clearly stated :P

 

[walfin]

There is a saying that says the powerful man will lick the beggars toes clean if the beggar is blind.

This means that there is a core of goodness in man, and with effort it can usually be dug up. And the powerful will be servants. The more powerful, the stronger the need to serve, in general. Just don't be canon fodder or something similar. In that case I believe it is preferable to be served.

Where's this saying from?

 

[RaBind]

Great thread and discussion, I found it very interesting. I believe the OP could've saved a lot of time and avoided being bashed if you'd bothered to fully explain you philosophy as far as you'd thought. This was probably minor trolling on your part, by intentionally keeping back the cards on your hands, so you were almost asking for a bashing.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZTcLc4BPIU

I don't see any major holes in your vision of society so far, of coarse only in theory, but how would it fuel progress? what would be the drive behind it's progression? i.e. competition in capitalism. I don't understand how just by having power people would feel or be compelled to succeed thereby gaining power and becoming strong.

The implementation is close to impossible though. It would require society to have a collective conscious and to reverse it's views about what is important/worth striving for.

But would a quadriplegic blind deaf mute necessarily not want to be head of state?

Wouldn't having a vegetable (sorry if the description is offensive) as the head of state effectively turn the state into a big structured veg?

This means that there is a core of goodness in man, and with effort it can usually be dug up. And the powerful will be servants. The more powerful, the stronger the need to serve, in general. Just don't be canon fodder or something similar. In that case I believe it is preferable to be served.

This reminded me of the bystander effect. I wonder if, in addition to people being more likely to help those in need when they are in smaller numbers, and feel more responsible, there is a correlation between how powerful an individual is and how responsible they feel to help those in need.

 

[walfin]

Great thread and discussion, I found it very interesting. I believe the OP could've saved a lot of time and avoided being bashed if you'd bothered to fully explain you philosophy as far as you'd thought. This was probably minor trolling on your part, by intentionally keeping back the cards on your hands, so you were almost asking for a bashing.

I don't see any major holes in your vision of society so far, of coarse only in theory, but how would it fuel progress? what would be the drive behind it's progression? i.e. competition in capitalism. I don't understand how just by having power people would feel or be compelled to succeed thereby gaining power and becoming strong.

Well, see now that it's become serious there's less liveliness in Philosophy.

How it fuels progress is by making ability/power inversely proportional to status.

When you have too much power, you lose status, causing you to want to lose some power to gain some status.

But humans want power, after all. Would you necessarily always want to be a constitutional monarch rather than a Prime Minister?

The implementation is close to impossible though. It would require society to have a collective conscious and to reverse it's views about what is important/worth striving for.

You're quite right; insofar as Christianity has stood for social justice it has not quite succeeded in creating this sort of state.

Wouldn't having a vegetable (sorry if the description is offensive) as the head of state effectively turn the state into a big structured veg?

[BIMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ86O2XvXTcUGY3s6T2jorwadHXtC9ZvFBNiismrxKMlwGDAY2Guw[/BIMG]

This reminded me of the bystander effect. I wonder if, in addition to people being more likely to help those in need when they are in smaller numbers, and feel more responsible, there is a correlation between how powerful an individual is and how responsible they feel to help those in need.

I'm not sure, everybody feels guilty for not helping the weak, I'd say, but everyone loves backing a winner.