artisticsolution wrote:Walker wrote:
Some say that's deserved, because many died to free the slaves, and amend the principle of goverance.
Some say he was a criminal because of those deaths.
Many died for the USA to gain independence, as well. Many people died to stop Hitler and so on.
I am beginning to think you are being unreasonable on purpose.
I think Walker was pointing out the plurality of opinion and how something as obvious as the immoral and ultimately self-defeating nature of slavery was not understood at all by many people at the time.
I would like to wax philosophical about tangential issues for a while that I think are important in putting recent events into perspective. Please feel free to ignore as usual :))
A lot of trouble in the world is caused by what I think of as the writhing of a threatened and dying beast - that is, religion, which is furiously fighting back as ever more people realise how bizarre it is to uncritically believe ancient mythology.
Another dying beast - democracy - is so fragile that it's easily influenced by a simple well-timed strategic leak of non-information by James Comey. Yet democracy was already eroded by juvenile public conversations triggered by a self-interested, sensationalist and obfuscationist media proprietors. More importantly still, governments are outgunned by large, powerful multinational corporations capable of avoiding making proper tax contributions to society through their influence of public policy, and also deciding how we "little people" are treated.
The old much-loved (or loathed) institutions of the 20th century are now crumbling, as all systems must do. However, change is difficult, and those who are already hurt by globalisation are driving these Tea Party style forces in the west. These people have been disregarded and they are prepared to take risks, feeling they don't have much left to lose. I figure that there usually
is something to lose and that we westerners take a lot of good things in life for granted, focusing on the shortfalls. This critical and competitive attitude no doubt has brought humanity much progress and success, but the unsatiated hunger for more - bigger, better, safer, cleaner, faster etc. remains. Does the word "enough" ever apply or is that the first sign of hubris that leads to a fall?
This is not to say that those under mortgage pressure should just be satisfied with their lot as "the top 1%" continue to up their percentage of society's wealth. The relativity issue is weirdly important. Theoretically, one should be satisfied to even have a roof over one's head, decent food to eat and a small level of entertainment, given the number of people in the world who would be thrilled to have those basics. Happiness surveys suggest that if almost everyone in a community is poor, then those people will tend to be happier than those who may be much better off, but relatively poor compared with others in their society. Being on the bottom diminishes happiness - at least for those focused on the status game.
This, I suggest, plays a role in the success of religion and meditation - the chance to take a break from endless hassles, expected self-improvements and life "failures" [sic], to take time out and focus on how wonderful life and existence is in its essence, even if aspects of human society are problematic.
Ideally people shouldn't need conduits to appreciate the amazingness of life but we do. I see rationalist scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss clearly getting the same kind of thrill from biology and cosmology respectively as theists get from their religions. They are filled with awe and love for their preferred "awe and love object". On a personal level, passion for pretty well anything - from nature, religion, art, a football team and so on - can perform that same energising function. You don't need religion or meditation for it.
So religions will logically fall as humanity somewhat disentangles itself from ancient myths. Religion will be replaced by love and appreciation of nature and reality per se, and nature's/humanity's/technology's complex , fascinating workings and webs of relationships, being less inclined to take it all for granted.
Democracy will be replaced by (mostly) benign dictatorships, much as is in place today, though with less pretence of choice and much more privatised. Increasingly government will become a consortium of business leaders. Most of us are already simply voting for rich people who cannot afford to give a damn about you in their position, even if they wanted to. This is no longer a world made by or for individuals. We little people have been supplanted by institutions, which are all that matter in politics, in the corridors of power. Individuals now only matter insofar as they affect institutions.
Individuals can still lead good lives, even in a system that is largely indifferent to their welfare. Those who are thought valuable by institutions will enjoy privileged lives. Other happy people will simply fly under the radar, like rats nesting in a ceiling, enjoying subtle freedoms while nimbly avoiding the large and dangerous "predators".
Ostensibly this was an election for "individuals fighting back" but Trump is still an institutions man, making his election just one more step in the shift in power from government (ie. the people) to corporations, a transition that has been in train for some time.
