• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

The philosophy of the weak

walfin

Democrazy
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
2,439
-->
Location
/dev/null
I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why 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.

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. 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.

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.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 12:18 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,021
-->
You are only a slave if you are a slave to your delusions and this makes you weak. If you believe that you need a transcendent reality for your salvation and happiness then you are weak. There is no need to want what is unreachable, desire for your idealized self, be who you are and nothing more.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Today 4:18 PM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,675
-->
Location
Australia
I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

In which society exactly do the more intelligent, more confident and more whatever have more 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. 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.

How exactly is the status quo not benefiting the dregs of society? As I recall, the poorest have access to food, shelter, healthcare, educations, amenities, entertainment, etc. This is certainly different to what the conditions were like for the greater part of history. What spurred on this change in recent history? What led to the improvement of the standard of living of all in society? I will give you a hit. It had something to do with the ideas propagated by Classical Liberalism. You know? Equality under the law and liberal markets vis a vis unleashing the potential of the more apt.

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. 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.

You may well be a dullard, reject, good for nothing, etc. You may be utterly useless in contributing towards society's division of labor. These reasons are really not why you're weak. You're weak weak because you're full of envy. You're disgruntled because you want success without having to work for it and face the risk of failure.

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.

The most successful in society who did not achieve their position through the political apparatus have done so by serving others. Ergo, they're servants. You wish for them to serve others and receive nothing in return? That's not going to happen. Not many people will voluntarily choose to do this.

I suggest you grow up.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 3:48 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,641
-->
If OP were someone else, I'd think this was satirical.

Think about what it means to 'deserve' something, how do the weak fit this criteria? If they do nothing, do they not deserve nothing? There are trillions of organisms on the planet with less ability than all but the poorest human, yet they make do with less. Should we invert this scenario? All people with ability above that of bacteria should devote their lives to the protection of the poorest and least capable of all life forms?
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:18 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,008
-->
Can't see image.

You're weak weak because you're full of envy. You're disgruntled because you want success without having to work for it and face the risk of failure.
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.

I think we should idolise tenacity over perfection, and yes there will be times when the little boy who wanted to be a fighter pilot finds out he doesn't have 20/20 vision, and those times can hurts so bad, but that's okay, that's life, and y'know if you keep trying you might not always get what you want, but you'll find what you need, in this complex world no effort ever goes completely to waste, even if it only serves to be a learning experience.

If truly determined he'll go invent a digital canopy that revolutionises air to air combat, enabling him to see more than anyone with their naked eyes could, or he could go off and become an attack helicopter ace using his understanding of fighter craft tactics to make himself an incredibly difficult target for enemy fighters, a multimillion dollar fighter isn't much good without an airstrip to land on is it?
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
-->
Location
West Virginia
Is power not what makes the strong?

If one redistributes power from the strong to the weak, then the weak are now simply the strong, and thus nothing has changed.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday 8:18 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
-->
I don't know exactly what you mean by strong, but it's a nice thing when people can cover each other's weaknesses with their strengths.

I guess there's strong that requires others to be weak and then there's strong that means you know how take care of yourself and then there's strong that means you are good at handling pain, torture, adversity without losing your head. Are you talking about the first one?

But if someone were truly weak and not strong in any way, it then begs the question what they have to offer anyone or anything or even themselves. And if they don't have anything to offer, the only reason for anyone to protect them would be a strict belief that it is a virtue to do so.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:18 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
*smells troll bait* *decides to post anyway*

I actually saw this post this morning and wanted to reply but didn't have time (gave me a nice shot of rage to greet the day with though). Proxy did a good job, but I might as well beat a dead horse for my own enjoyment.

I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

It's not a matter of deserving rights. This is the flaw in your admittedly slave-like thinking. The strong define good in in reference to themselves and their capabilities. Anything that they have is not something they see as something they deserve but rather as something they have seized. However when society is structured in these perverse terms of "positive rights" or "entitlements" and the strong game the system to their advantage, you can't blame them (well I suppose you will anyway in accordance with your warped and sick worldview). They're just better at exploiting any situation.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why 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.

This is really nauseating.

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. 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.

You don't deserve shit.

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 hilarious because you end up advocating that the strong behave magnanimously, a classic ethical virtue. Virtue ethics is inherently aristocratic and held by the strong because it is a morality defined in reference to oneself as opposed to being defined in opposition to another (such as in slave morality, where you are good because you are pathetic and he is bad because he is strong).

Unfortunately magnanimity will never be enough for advocates of parasitism like you. Free shit is like heroin in its addictiveness, and in a democracy coalitions of the wretched will vote for the candidate that promises them the most free shit. It warps decision-making in favor of high time preference, "instant gratification," which is in the long run untenable and why historically every democracy has ended up imploding upon itself.

As far as social status is concerned, that is more or less determined by our more mammalian instincts. Fortunately not much damage cretins like you can do there.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why 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.

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. 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.

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.

But wouldn't this philosophy create an infinite recursion wherein the strong, upon losing their power, become weak, and therefore deseriving of power,-- and the weak, upon attaining power, become strong, and therefore undeserving?

-Duxwing
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
-->
Location
West Virginia
But wouldn't this philosophy create an infinite recursion wherein the strong, upon losing their power, become weak, and therefore deseriving of power,-- and the weak, upon attaining power, become strong, and therefore undeserving?

-Duxwing

'tis what I said.
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
-->
Location
West Virginia
Over all, the man sounds exactly like Ellsworth M. Toohey:D
 

nexion

coalescing in diffusion
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,037
-->
Location
tartarus
You don't deserve shit.

Neither does anyone else.

Perhaps the respondents to this thread should try to bother understanding what is being said.
 

Oblivious

Is Kredit to Team!!
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,269
-->
Location
Purgatory with the cool kids
walfin, this may fly on news.yahoo.sg comments section, but not on any place with the tiniest modicum of common sense.

How much have you donated to the hungry and homeless in Africa this year? You have the internet connection to post your ranting, so you have at least a certain amount of wealth to speak of. How much of it have you given away to those weaker then you?

If you believe so strongly in your 'philosophy', show us the goods.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
walfin, this may fly on news.yahoo.sg comments section, but not on any place with the tiniest modicum of common sense.

How much have you donated to the hungry and homeless in Africa this year? You have the internet connection to post your ranting, so you have at least a certain amount of wealth to speak of. How much of it have you given away to those weaker then you?

If you believe so strongly in your 'philosophy', show us the goods.

Though I disagree with the OP, the truth of a philosophy and one's adherence to it are entirely separate.

-Duxwing
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
'tis what I said.

I didn't notice it because I often start posts, laze around for an hour or two, and then finish them. I'm terribly sorry for having seemed to have plagiarized. I didn't mean to! :o

-Duxwing
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
-->
Location
West Virginia
I didn't notice it because I often start posts, laze around for an hour or two, and then finish them. I'm terribly sorry for having seemed to have plagiarized. I didn't mean to! :o

-Duxwing

No, I was happy because my thought was not merely the musing of a mad god. :)
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
No, I was happy because my thought was not merely the musing of a mad god. :)

Oh, I feel much better n-- wait, you consider yourself a god? :confused:

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Absurdity you've read nietzsche like an action movie. waste of space.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
actually i'm baffled by your ability to make primitive male dominance seem like a solution to anything. you completely disregard the fact that slave morality currently rules. so shallow, so vacuous. just a bundle of indignation.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
slave morality, with its guilt shame and accountability, is the substrate of capital and power.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:18 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
actually i'm baffled by your ability to make primitive male dominance seem like a solution to anything. you completely disregard the fact that slave morality currently rules. so shallow, so vacuous. just a bundle of indignation.

So ironic. For someone accusing me of lack of depth you have done a laughably shallow reading of my post.

I don't disregard slave morality's dominance at all. I'm just contemptuous of it.

And Nietzschean master / "the strong" =/= "primitive male dominance." Nice try though.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
I don't disregard slave morality's dominance at all. I'm just contemptuous of it.

And Nietzschean master / "the strong" =/= "primitive male dominance." Nice try though.

you are effectively defending existing power structures, conflating ubermensch with slave owner although ownership itself is an artefact of slave morality. ubermensch is certainly beyond power in its interpersonal sense, because such power is conservative.
 

Bonbonnom

Member
Local time
Today 7:18 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
36
-->
So you essentially imagine a eutopic society based on a combination of the utmost extremes of the opposites of socialism and capitalism? So you're asking for a society where people will suffer on purpose to make sure that the people that have done nothing for their wealth will have power over the ones who gave them their wealth? So you want a society that mirrors the US congress? I don't see that working.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
you are effectively defending existing power structures, conflating ubermensch with slave owner although ownership itself is an artefact of slave morality. ubermensch is certainly beyond power in its interpersonal sense, because such power is conservative.

Existing conservative power structures are built on slave morality's interaction with the morality of unethical people, not on the philosophy of the ubermensch; the ubermensch would never enslave himself to another. Moreover, the ubermensch needs no slaves, for in respecting his own free will he necessarily respects the free will of others-- after all, his only justification for his actions is that his will is free.

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Existing conservative power structures are built on slave morality's interaction with the morality of unethical people, not on the philosophy of the ubermensch; the ubermensch would never enslave himself to another. Moreover, the ubermensch needs no slaves, for in respecting his own free will he necessarily respects the free will of others-- after all, his only justification for his actions is that his will is free.

-Duxwing

i'm not sure if you mean to object or agree. what you're saying is congruent with what i'm saying, but you seem to be framing it as a counter argument. sorry if i misunderstand.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
i'm not sure if you mean to object or agree. what you're saying is congruent with what i'm saying, but you seem to be framing it as a counter argument. sorry if i misunderstand.

My point was that the philosophy of the ubermensch is not equivalent to "primitive male dominance". It's more like, "Seize the day and be yourself! Just don't be a jerk."

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
My point was that the philosophy of the ubermensch is not equivalent to "primitive male dominance". It's more like, "Seize the day and be yourself! Just don't be a jerk."

-Duxwing

yes, then we agree. i claimed that Absurdity was conflating ubermensch power with a primitive male dominance which thrives on a slave morality chained to existing structure, i.e. the power that rules today. he was making an apologetic argument. that is ressentiment. in the nietzschean sense, the masters of society are slaves as well because they are addicted to crude interpersonal power, beyond any possible sensual wealth. the true ubermensch is free of such burden, and thus not a socially detrimental or oppressive element.

nietzsche's notion of master and slave (ubermensch vs. the bunch) is really more like a conflict than a unilateral power relation. it's a moral war and ubermensch will eventually win because they hold an affirmative truth (creativity) or something akin, rather than cling to moral dogma.
 

wonkavision

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 11:18 PM
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
420
-->
I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why 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.

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. 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.

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.

Wake up, Walfin!

From one NF to another, most of the people on this forum are powerfully resistant to heavily Feeling-oriented moral arguments.
Especially the ones with Inferior Feeling (i.e.INTPs), they tend to have deep-seated issues about Feeling judgement, and can lash out insanely when the Inferior function is triggered.

Either find a way to inject some hard logic into your assertions, or prepare to be eaten alive! :storks:
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
yes, then we agree. i claimed that Absurdity was conflating ubermensch power with a primitive male dominance which thrives on a slave morality chained to existing structure, i.e. the power that rules today. he was making an apologetic argument. that is ressentiment. in the nietzschean sense, the masters of society are slaves as well because they are addicted to crude interpersonal power, beyond any possible sensual wealth. the true ubermensch is free of such burden, and thus not a socially detrimental or oppressive element.

nietzsche's notion of master and slave (ubermensch vs. the bunch) is really more like a conflict than a unilateral power relation. it's a moral war and ubermensch will eventually win because they hold an affirmative truth (creativity) or something akin, rather than cling to moral dogma.

Really?

So ironic. For someone accusing me of lack of depth you have done a laughably shallow reading of my post.

I don't disregard slave morality's dominance at all. I'm just contemptuous of it.

And Nietzschean master / "the strong" =/= "primitive male dominance." Nice try though.

We three are in agreement.

Wake up, Walfin!

From one NF to another, most of the people on this forum are powerfully resistant to Feeling-oriented moral arguments.

Either find a way to inject some logic into your assertions, or prepare to be eaten alive! :storks:

:D The INTP debate anthem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWxBrI0g1kE

-Duxwing
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
of course he claims to be correct as well but in his critique of walfin's post he made said conflation.

I don't see the conflation. Could you enlighten me?

-Duxwing
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:18 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
Now that I've thought about it, and Brontosaurie explained his point a little more, I think he is right. Wasn't my intent, but I did fall into that trap.

My apologies for being obnoxious.
 

Starswirl

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:18 AM
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
129
-->
Since this thread has turned into an OP-bash, I've decided to make things interesting by defending the OP despite my distaste for his opinions.

I hate any thought of the strong flourishing. Of the capable dominating society. Of anyone being better or deserving of more rights by virtue of being more intelligent, more confident, more whatever.

Not for a moment would I believe in equality. All of us are unequal. And that is why 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.

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. 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.

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.

The OP demonstrates an interesting part of slave morality. Walfin is full of contempt for masters, but imagine what would happen if this hate was realized (AKA converted into the Real). Would slaves not then be the strong by fighting, ostensibly in the name of slave morality, to fundamentally change society as they see fit?

If so, then is there truly anything detestable in a "slave rebellion"? The problems with slave morality (ex. Letztemensch, hatred of everything strong) are mostly mitigated if slaves passionately embrace the methods of the masters, if you will, for their own purposes.

And despite the flaws with slave morality, can anyone truly support a world founded on master morality? If everyone followed it, the world would be total anarchy. And no one wants to return to feudalism, the period when the distinction between masters and slaves (in terms of how people thought) was clearest.
 

walfin

Democrazy
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
2,439
-->
Location
/dev/null
If OP were someone else, I'd think this was satirical.

I expected an OP bash and this is fine. It shows perfectly how unjust a society could be if those who are strong and/or in the majority can bash others without limit.

You may well be a dullard, reject, good for nothing, etc. You may be utterly useless in contributing towards society's division of labor. These reasons are really not why you're weak. You're weak weak because you're full of envy. You're disgruntled because you want success without having to work for it and face the risk of failure.

I'm only responding to this because a response seems to be called for, in the face of such a vehement personal attack made with such conviction.

So my response is: QFT.

Duxwing said:
But wouldn't this philosophy create an infinite recursion wherein the strong, upon losing their power, become weak, and therefore deseriving of power,-- and the weak, upon attaining power, become strong, and therefore undeserving?

You may see it as infinite recursion, another way to describe it is dynamic equilibrium or negative feedback much like how your body's insulin system regulates itself. If your insulin system could not do so you would have diabetes.

Oblivious said:
How much have you donated to the hungry and homeless in Africa this year? You have the internet connection to post your ranting, so you have at least a certain amount of wealth to speak of. How much of it have you given away to those weaker then you?

This is a fallacy known as ad hominem tu quoque.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 3:48 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,641
-->
It wasn't meant to be a bash (though I can see now how it would be taken that way, my bad). If I saw almost anybody else in this thread say what you did in the OP, I'd call troll just like Absurdity. I took it as genuine because from what little I know of you, it doesn't seem to be your style. Perhaps the fact you were expecting a bash influenced your wording?

I think your description of a negative feedback loop is a solid description.

Your dismissal of Oblivion based on the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy seems like argumentum ad logicam. The criticism is valid, even if the argument form is not. You are sitting here whining about what the world should be like instead of doing something to change it. Maybe if you whine at the strong enough they will do your work for you? Perhaps, given your demonstrated ability on this forum, you are hiding from the possibility that you are the strong, and you have chosen to categorise yourself as weak in order to avoid doing your part?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:18 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Now that I've thought about it, and Brontosaurie explained his point a little more, I think he is right. Wasn't my intent, but I did fall into that trap.

My apologies for being obnoxious.

this is a rare occurence - i salute you


i was afraid of having to elaborate more
 

nexion

coalescing in diffusion
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,037
-->
Location
tartarus
Pardon my delayed response, @Absurdity

I don't recall suggesting they did.
That is quite alright. I had hoped you weren't so blinded by rage as to outright deny my proposition. But this trifle is really of no importance.

Perhaps you should enlighten us.

The detractors of the OP often rejected his idea of the slaves overcoming the masters under the premise that, should this occur, it would devolve into nothing more infinite regression, where those who destroy the strong shall be in turn swallowed by the new strong, who shall therefore again destroy the strong, in a near constant upheaval of societal and economic stability. It seems as though Walfin has made a counterargument to this point, which, while of course working perfectly well in theory, cannot be said to have any effectiveness in the real world.

Let us assume for a moment that this idea of "dynamic equilibrium" in societal terms completely failed (a circumstance which I find more likely to happen than constant socio-economic not being maintained, and both of which I find vastly more likely to happen than for the weak to overcome the strong and then to remain strong for a long while): why exactly would that be particularly bad? Granted, I have much distaste for topics of a socio-political persuasion and I put almost no thought into such topics, hence I can take an interesting perspective of both praising and condemning anything I please without knowing anything about any of it, but still. How far, in the chaos of such a society, would man be put back? And how much would that really matter?

I am more interested still in why you find the nature of slave morality to be contemptuous, even going so far as to call this thread a troll thread. Even assuming that one were just trolling, this hardly means that the ideas put forth aren't interesting. And even assuming that the ideas are not at all interesting or original, this hardly means that they cannot be appreciated for their own merits and in their rights. I am baffled that one can be disgusted by something so simple as an idea. I could understand being disgusted by a person, who has admittedly become moulded by his ideas, but it was not the idea itself which made him a vile wretch, but the way the idea impressed itself upon him. I suppose it really has to do with how much stock one has put into a particular idea. If some idea goes against some principle upon which one has built his worldview, and this idea therefore attempts to destroy his whole philosophy, then this idea can seem very hostile (the mere mention of free will more or less outright offends me nowadays :D).

As for Walfin, I'm not sure what he meant by this thread (although it is becoming apparent from his continued writings that he believes this philosophy can be both attainable and sustainable in the real world), but I see this thread as more a thought experiment than anything else, like saying you believe something when you really don't, or saying you don't believe something when you really do. Regardless of the truth value of the words one utters or his relationship to those words, he is doubtlessly uttering them because he finds some shred of value in them, and perhaps you shall too, if you seek any. But whether you should, or even whether you will, is not up for me to decide.

If this is not quite so enlightening as you wished it to be (I doubt it is), then please take consolation in this convoluted wall of text for its own sake. That idea was halfway created but its memory is fully gone.
 

ProxyAmenRa

Here to bring back the love!
Local time
Today 4:18 PM
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
4,675
-->
Location
Australia
I'm only responding to this because a response seems to be called for, in the face of such a vehement personal attack made with such conviction.

So my response is: QFT.

It is not my fault that you wish to be a parasite and you put forward a dismal attempt to justify your desire.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
Pardon my delayed response, @Absurdity


That is quite alright. I had hoped you weren't so blinded by rage as to outright deny my proposition. But this trifle is really of no importance.



The detractors of the OP often rejected his idea of the slaves overcoming the masters under the premise that, should this occur, it would devolve into nothing more infinite regression, where those who destroy the strong shall be in turn swallowed by the new strong, who shall therefore again destroy the strong, in a near constant upheaval of societal and economic stability. It seems as though Walfin has made a counterargument to this point, which, while of course working perfectly well in theory, cannot be said to have any effectiveness in the real world.

Let us assume for a moment that this idea of "dynamic equilibrium" in societal terms completely failed (a circumstance which I find more likely to happen than constant socio-economic not being maintained, and both of which I find vastly more likely to happen than for the weak to overcome the strong and then to remain strong for a long while): why exactly would that be particularly bad? Granted, I have much distaste for topics of a socio-political persuasion and I put almost no thought into such topics, hence I can take an interesting perspective of both praising and condemning anything I please without knowing anything about any of it, but still. How far, in the chaos of such a society, would man be put back? And how much would that really matter?

I am more interested still in why you find the nature of slave morality to be contemptuous, even going so far as to call this thread a troll thread. Even assuming that one were just trolling, this hardly means that the ideas put forth aren't interesting. And even assuming that the ideas are not at all interesting or original, this hardly means that they cannot be appreciated for their own merits and in their rights. I am baffled that one can be disgusted by something so simple as an idea. I could understand being disgusted by a person, who has admittedly become moulded by his ideas, but it was not the idea itself which made him a vile wretch, but the way the idea impressed itself upon him. I suppose it really has to do with how much stock one has put into a particular idea. If some idea goes against some principle upon which one has built his worldview, and this idea therefore attempts to destroy his whole philosophy, then this idea can seem very hostile (the mere mention of free will more or less outright offends me nowadays :D).

As for Walfin, I'm not sure what he meant by this thread (although it is becoming apparent from his continued writings that he believes this philosophy can be both attainable and sustainable in the real world), but I see this thread as more a thought experiment than anything else, like saying you believe something when you really don't, or saying you don't believe something when you really do. Regardless of the truth value of the words one utters or his relationship to those words, he is doubtlessly uttering them because he finds some shred of value in them, and perhaps you shall too, if you seek any. But whether you should, or even whether you will, is not up for me to decide.

If this is not quite so enlightening as you wished it to be (I doubt it is), then please take consolation in this convoluted wall of text for its own sake. That idea was halfway created but its memory is fully gone.

The problem isn't societal upheaval inasmuch as it is a logic error in Walfin's philosophy: the sets "The Weak" and "The Strong" are poorly defined, turning his idea of a slave revolt into a comical paradox. If we want to be kind, we can even call this problem Walfin's Paradox, wherein exist two sets, P and Q, ]within one set there is an element A, and the rule is to move A to the set that lacks it. The now 'classic' example would be Walfin's Slave Rebellion, wherein the Weak are always to overthrow the Strong, thereby making themselves Strong and the Strong Weak.

Viva Logic!

-Duxwing
 

nexion

coalescing in diffusion
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,037
-->
Location
tartarus
The problem isn't societal upheaval inasmuch as it is a logic error in Walfin's philosophy: the sets "The Weak" and "The Strong" are poorly defined, turning his idea of a slave revolt into a comical paradox. If we want to be kind, we can even call this problem Walfin's Paradox, wherein exist two sets, P and Q, ]within one set there is an element A, and the rule is to move A to the set that lacks it. The now 'classic' example would be Walfin's Slave Rebellion, wherein the Weak are always to overthrow the Strong, thereby making themselves Strong and the Strong Weak.

Viva Logic!

-Duxwing

Unfortunately, the logic here is a bit lacking. Despite the fact that you managed to frame this abstractly using sets and propositions, you really haven't told me anything I didn't know upon making my initial reply. The premise which you have framed here is one that you and others pointed out in the first few posts. I understood this and basically asked in my post, why does it really matter if the weak and the strong should continually pass the torch onto each other? Ironically, I think that the rampant instability this would grant could make society better overall, by, for example, preventing power-mongering regimes from springing up.

Also, I'd like to point out that what you term as "Walfin's Paradox" is not paradoxical at all. Using your parallel to sets, where the goal is to move element A into whichever set does not contain it, and assuming A starts out in set P. A would move hands from P to Q. But then P would be without A, so A would move back from Q to P. This pattern would, for all intents and purposes, occur without end in this logical game, which is what posters were referring to when they spoke of 'infinite regression'. So you see, that's not actually a paradox.

In the abstract logic game, we would stop here: this movement of element A from set P to set Q and vice versa would occur indefinitely, and that would be the end. However, in the real world, where patterns are not so likely to follow logically, I think it can reasonably assumed that one of two things would happen if this game were started as per the rules of Walfin's slave rebellion:

1. The element A would eventually land in either set P or set Q and the game would end. This would ultimately be a failure of the slave rebellion to accomplish its goals.
2. Element A would pass between sets P and Q in such a way that it would appear that A is in fact in both sets. This would, as far as I'm concerned, be what would happen assuming Walfin's idea of "dynamic equilibrium" takes place and would be a complete success of the slave rebellion.

The latter, coincidentally, would be a paradox: two disjoint sets hold the same element (assuming one believes the sets to be entirely disjoint to begin with, but that's beside the point). A paradox, sure, but nonetheless possible.
 

walfin

Democrazy
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
2,439
-->
Location
/dev/null
I think the idea is not fully understood but Nil's scenario no. 2 comes close.

I'm not advocating for a slave revolt. Such things have occurred many times before in history. If it succeeds, all that happens is that the slaves set themselves up as the new masters.

The weak must have an elevated social status, simpliciter, such that you can have either wealth, or status, but not both, at least not at maximum levels; then, it would be in the strong's self interest to cease to be strong.

If the weak overthrow the strong, they will simply become the new strong and entrench themselves for as long as they can. But if the strong overthrow themselves, they will become the new weak and the new strong will seek to overthrow themselves yet again.

(And yes, if anyone wants to, they could point out that this philosophy is not new, but it is clearly still capable of generating lots of strong and emotional responses :D)

As far as social status is concerned, that is more or less determined by our more mammalian instincts. Fortunately not much damage cretins like you can do there.
If social status is determined by our mammalian instincts (I assume this means not the prefrontal cortex), then I hope to be able to choose to rise above them.

ProxyAmenRa said:
It is not my fault that you wish to be a parasite and you put forward a dismal attempt to justify your desire.

A loaded statement full of presuppositions, but nevertheless, you are right that it is not your "fault" that I said what I did. Fault only arises where a wrong has been committed but since there is nothing wrong with my OP, there could have been no fault on the part of anyone.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:18 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
Unfortunately, the logic here is a bit lacking. Despite the fact that you managed to frame this abstractly using sets and propositions, you really haven't told me anything I didn't know upon making my initial reply. The premise which you have framed here is one that you and others pointed out in the first few posts. I understood this and basically asked in my post, why does it really matter if the weak and the strong should continually pass the torch onto each other? Ironically, I think that the rampant instability this would grant could make society better overall, by, for example, preventing power-mongering regimes from springing up.

The problem isn't one of practice, but of theory. The elements in the sets "The Weak" and "The Strong" change after the application of Walfin's Rule (The Weak must revolt) making the sets themselves inadequately defined because Walfin's rule presumably presumes that the elements in "The Weak" are somehow special and deserving of being in the set "The Strong" (otherwise, why should they rebel?) but the application of Walfin's Rule leads to them suddenly changing--contradicting their earlier presumed definition.

Also, I'd like to point out that what you term as "Walfin's Paradox" is not paradoxical at all. Using your parallel to sets, where the goal is to move element A into whichever set does not contain it, and assuming A starts out in set P. A would move hands from P to Q. But then P would be without A, so A would move back from Q to P. This pattern would, for all intents and purposes, occur without end in this logical game, which is what posters were referring to when they spoke of 'infinite regression'. So you see, that's not actually a paradox.

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, here, but their classification of Walfin's Slave Rebellion (WSR) as an 'infinite regression' is incorrect. WSR is an infinite loop: its set of elements is not infinite, and the power passes between two elements ad infinitum. As for infinite loops not being paradoxical, consider the Liar Sentence, a paradox of Boolean logic:

This sentence is false.

The liar sentence can be true or false.

If it is assumed false, then it is therefore true.
If it is true, then it is therefore false.
Ad infinitum.

If it is assumed true, then it is therefore false.
If it is false, then it is therefore true.
Ad infinitum.

Whichever state the Liar Sentence is in, it leads to an infinite loop, thus being paradoxical.

In the abstract logic game, we would stop here: this movement of element A from set P to set Q and vice versa would occur indefinitely, and that would be the end.

Hence a paradox: The sets "Weak" and "Strong" have weak definitions given what Walfin's Rule (The Weak must revolt) prescribes. I'm not looking to prove WSR impractical; I'm looking to prove it illogical.

However, in the real world, where patterns are not so likely to follow logically, I think it can reasonably assumed that one of two things would happen if this game were started as per the rules of Walfin's slave rebellion:

1. The element A would eventually land in either set P or set Q and the game would end. This would ultimately be a failure of the slave rebellion to accomplish its goals.
2. Element A would pass between sets P and Q in such a way that it would appear that A is in fact in both sets. This would, as far as I'm concerned, be what would happen assuming Walfin's idea of "dynamic equilibrium" takes place and would be a complete success of the slave rebellion.

A WSR could never be put into place because it is self-contradictory.

The latter, coincidentally, would be a paradox: two disjoint sets hold the same element (assuming one believes the sets to be entirely disjoint to begin with, but that's beside the point). A paradox, sure, but nonetheless possible.

What you're describing is a logical impossibility: two disjoint sets cannot contain the element if that element can only be contained by one set at a time. We'd have to change the rules of the game to allow that.

-Duxwing
 

Oblivious

Is Kredit to Team!!
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,269
-->
Location
Purgatory with the cool kids
This is a fallacy known as ad hominem tu quoque.

Basing an argument on the presence or lack thereof of a fallacy is itself a fallacy.

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


You also realize this argument taken to its logical extreme can be used to elect a rapist/serial killer/mass murderer to a position of high office and or authority.


How about this?

You beat me in argument, therefore you are stronger. Therefore you are beholden to me and I am of higher value then you are, making you the loser in this argument. Otherwise, my rejection of your 'philosophy' is to be 'stronger', and since I reject your philosophy I am not beholden to it.

I think you can see where this goes.
 

Oblivious

Is Kredit to Team!!
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,269
-->
Location
Purgatory with the cool kids
This should be renamed the philosophy of failure. Since its success implies its failure and its failure implies its failure.

A failed philosophy of failure that results not in success but failure.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:18 PM
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,359
-->
(And yes, if anyone wants to, they could point out that this philosophy is not new, but it is clearly still capable of generating lots of strong and emotional responses :D)

Well I'm going to bow out at this point. It seems pretty clear what sorts of games are being played here.

Probably shouldn't have responded in the first place. Oh well.
 

walfin

Democrazy
Local time
Today 2:18 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
2,439
-->
Location
/dev/null
Basing an argument on the presence or lack thereof of a fallacy is itself a fallacy.

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

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.

Oblivious said:
You beat me in argument, therefore you are stronger. Therefore you are beholden to me and I am of higher value then you are, making you the loser in this argument. Otherwise, my rejection of your 'philosophy' is to be 'stronger', and since I reject your philosophy I am not beholden to it.

This argument is only partially valid in form and one of the premises is unsound.

Oblivious said:
You beat me in argument
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.

Oblivious said:
Therefore you are beholden to me and I am of higher value then you are, making you the loser in this argument
This presupposes the existence of another logical construct: "if I am of higher value than you are and/or you are beholden to me then you shall be made the loser of this argument".

This is not deductively true since:-
It may be possible for a person with lower "value" (I assume this to mean social status as that is the topic of discussion) to be the winner of an argument (in real life, an example would be when individual plaintiffs win damages against big corporations like McDonald's & Coke in tort cases in court - of course you can argue that the individual plaintiffs have higher "value" than McDonald's and Coke but if you do so, you are ascribing to the philosophy in the OP which you have clearly no intention to do); and
It may be possible for a person to be the winner of an argument but nevertheless be "beholden" to another in other ways (such as if the loser of the argument has done the person some other favour).

Thus, this statement is not logically valid.

Oblivious said:
Otherwise, my rejection of your 'philosophy' is to be 'stronger', and since I reject your philosophy I am not beholden to it.
This is also not valid and/or does not invalidate the OP because:

Your rejection of the philosophy espoused in the OP does not necessarily make you stronger according to that philosophy, as being "stronger" in that philosophy meant having higher social status/intelligence/wealth, among other things, none of which is proven by mere reason of a bare denial of the philosophy. While you may nevertheless have raised other points to prove your higher social status/intelligence/wealth, that was not done. If you were using a different definition of stronger, then this statement was at cross purposes with the OP and thus cannot make the OP any less valid as it did not meet the OP's case.

The second premise presupposes another logical construct, "if I reject a philosophy I am not beholden to it". By beholden, I take it that you mean "subject to". This is not necessarily true as non-communists in Soviet Russia were nevertheless required to abide by socialist law and non-Legalists in Qin China were nevertheless judged by Legalist standards. Given that this philosophy is not imposed by any ruler and by its very nature cannot be imposed by force, I concede that this assumption can nevertheless be a cogent, if not valid one.

However, your rejection of the OP, in any case, does not render it devoid of merit or illogical per se. There are people on this earth which continue to reject propositions which have been proven to be true, whether sincerely or for amusement (e.g. the Flat Earth Society). Thus, your declaration that you are "not beholden to" the philosophy espoused in the OP has no bearing on its logical validity and/or soundness, or, if it is not entirely logically valid, which is not admitted, its cogency and/or strength.

In light of all of the above, the argument made in your most recent post still remains:-
1. Not logically valid as its form is defective.
2. Not sound as one premise is clearly not true or at least not yet true.
3. Of doubtful cogency and strength as it makes assumptions that are not proven and for which counterexamples in real life may be found.

Well I'm going to bow out at this point. It seems pretty clear what sorts of games are being played here.

Probably shouldn't have responded in the first place. Oh well.
Hey, this is an INTP forum. The Philosophy forum shouldn't be so lifeless.
 
Top Bottom