Who's to say the exclusion took place due to selfishness? Sure self-interest was the root but not all self-interest is "selfish" in the way society uses the word.
What caused the Cold War, the Revolutionary War, the Peninsular War? What breaks apart a family or causes a boyfriend to argue with his girlfriend?
Ideas. Ideas and man's dedication to them. The Americans fought England over the idea of "no taxation without representation". Europe struggled against itself over the idea that Jews were unfit for life and whether or not power existed for the sake of the powerful.
And of course the Cold War unfolded because the Communists envisioned the world a certain way, the Americans another.
Even our division right now, between the users taciturn and Valkeer, is because we disagree ideologically.
But again, I'm not saying the collapse of the Roman Empire or the birth of the American was due to self-interest (which, you're right, is a better term than selfishness) - I'm saying that all or some of these things come in to play for any particular event.
To use your example, the Cold War unfolded not solely due to ideology. It took cooperation to unite the branches, and self-interest to give them hubris. It was love of the idea and hatred of the other. In a sense, it isn't the idea itself but the passion of man that is his folly. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
I'm aware of the irony in saying this, but I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically. I'm saying inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things cause strife - you choose to call them all ideas.
You do realize you just divided yourself from myself by virtue of your own idea on this right?
And even if you claimed I was wrong, again you would be divided against me by virtue of thought (or ideas).
Self-interest has a part but it's not the incriminating element, as I've said. It's like looking at a murder and saying that John Boot didn't kill Abe; the theatre, the bullet, and man's intellect to build weapons did.
Those are elements but in and of themselves they have no internal value; no quality by which man would be propelled to divide one against the other
You're looking at the perfectly natural and neutral qualities of self-interest, hate, "inclusion" as causes of divisions rather than the symptoms and by-products of it.
Calling something ironic doesn't bar it from being exemplified as the source of mankind's division.
To my point: If ideas are the realm in which man finds what divides him, then beyond what a man believes the human species is perfectly capable of living in harmony with each other.
But it's not in man's bent to recognize this and so an American hates the Soviet not realizing that the only true divide between Americans and Russians, Austrian and Chinese is the ideas between them.
My point was that our fundamental theses aren't particularly different. Even within this debate, we are arguing with inclusive and exclusive ideology, pride, mutual interest - we're divided not just on principle but by personality. The fact that our ideas are so arguably similar implies that this isn't a division of ideas.
Haven't you ever been in an argument that dissolved into a conflict of pride? An argument that had nothing to do with ideology? An argument whose catalyst you can't even recall? Is a tribal war fought over ideology or food? Did English settlers disembark and slaughter native Americans because their ideas were irresolvable? I think it had more to do with land and power - inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things. You can call those things ideas, but I don't believe there is a ding-an-sich beyond that realm of ideas.
I don't know where you got that from, but trust me your creed is as different from my creed as night is from day.
The pride was caused because the person had the idea that they were greater than everyone else. Arrogance (misnamed pride)was bred by the idea that they were somehow "special".
A person -believing- that pride is the grave of wisdom would know not to give place to it.
"Did English settles disembark...slaughter native Americans?"
In many ways their ideas were irresolvable. The Native Americans saw no need for technological advancement, their creed, culture, or way of life.
The English sought to further the glory of their ideas and since the Native American couldn't be reconciled to live within it, they dealt with them.
Do you think a war would have erupted had Native America been filled with a copy cat version of merry ol' London?
Do you really think a geographic location is what kept Londoners at peace?
If ideas are the source of man's differences (just as it's the source of ours) then it must be true that personal hatred is never right since the only difference between one man and the other is their creeds.
The Division of Mankind
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Who's to say the exclusion took place due to selfishness? Sure self-interest was the root but not all self-interest is "selfish" in the way society uses the word.
What caused the Cold War, the Revolutionary War, the Peninsular War? What breaks apart a family or causes a boyfriend to argue with his girlfriend?
Ideas. Ideas and man's dedication to them. The Americans fought England over the idea of "no taxation without representation". Europe struggled against itself over the idea that Jews were unfit for life and whether or not power existed for the sake of the powerful.
And of course the Cold War unfolded because the Communists envisioned the world a certain way, the Americans another.
Even our division right now, between the users taciturn and Valkeer, is because we disagree ideologically.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But again, I'm not saying the collapse of the Roman Empire or the birth of the American was due to self-interest (which, you're right, is a better term than selfishness) - I'm saying that all or some of these things come in to play for any particular event.
To use your example, the Cold War unfolded not solely due to ideology. It took cooperation to unite the branches, and self-interest to give them hubris. It was love of the idea and hatred of the other. In a sense, it isn't the idea itself but the passion of man that is his folly. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
I'm aware of the irony in saying this, but I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically. I'm saying inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things cause strife - you choose to call them all ideas.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically"
You do realize you just divided yourself from myself by virtue of your own idea on this right?
And even if you claimed I was wrong, again you would be divided against me by virtue of thought (or ideas).
Self-interest has a part but it's not the incriminating element, as I've said. It's like looking at a murder and saying that John Boot didn't kill Abe; the theatre, the bullet, and man's intellect to build weapons did.
Those are elements but in and of themselves they have no internal value; no quality by which man would be propelled to divide one against the other
You're looking at the perfectly natural and neutral qualities of self-interest, hate, "inclusion" as causes of divisions rather than the symptoms and by-products of it.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I'm aware of the irony in saying this"
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Calm yourself! I got it the first time.
Calling something ironic doesn't bar it from being exemplified as the source of mankind's division.
To my point: If ideas are the realm in which man finds what divides him, then beyond what a man believes the human species is perfectly capable of living in harmony with each other.
But it's not in man's bent to recognize this and so an American hates the Soviet not realizing that the only true divide between Americans and Russians, Austrian and Chinese is the ideas between them.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My point was that our fundamental theses aren't particularly different. Even within this debate, we are arguing with inclusive and exclusive ideology, pride, mutual interest - we're divided not just on principle but by personality. The fact that our ideas are so arguably similar implies that this isn't a division of ideas.
Haven't you ever been in an argument that dissolved into a conflict of pride? An argument that had nothing to do with ideology? An argument whose catalyst you can't even recall? Is a tribal war fought over ideology or food? Did English settlers disembark and slaughter native Americans because their ideas were irresolvable? I think it had more to do with land and power - inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things. You can call those things ideas, but I don't believe there is a ding-an-sich beyond that realm of ideas.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Our ideas are similar"
I don't know where you got that from, but trust me your creed is as different from my creed as night is from day.
The pride was caused because the person had the idea that they were greater than everyone else. Arrogance (misnamed pride)was bred by the idea that they were somehow "special".
A person -believing- that pride is the grave of wisdom would know not to give place to it.
"Did English settles disembark...slaughter native Americans?"
In many ways their ideas were irresolvable. The Native Americans saw no need for technological advancement, their creed, culture, or way of life.
The English sought to further the glory of their ideas and since the Native American couldn't be reconciled to live within it, they dealt with them.
Do you think a war would have erupted had Native America been filled with a copy cat version of merry ol' London?
Do you really think a geographic location is what kept Londoners at peace?
If ideas are the source of man's differences (just as it's the source of ours) then it must be true that personal hatred is never right since the only difference between one man and the other is their creeds.
Haha, I am calm, I'm just too busy to be discussing this right now. I'll be back later.