Fabianism

[MikeNovack]

But that really doesn't get to the original question. The question really was, Where does the "wolfishness" we both recognize come from?

It's important, Mike, isn't it? Wolves capitalize on those who believe there's enough sheepskin on their backs to make them harmless.

No, we really don't agree on basics.

For example, wolves. You really have no concept of how wolves behave. Wolves have "wolf morality", know very well how they should behave to be a good member of the pack as opposed to a bad member of the pack. And they usually behave accordingly, are "good wolves", not "bad wolves". You are believing wolves act according to your imagination of how wolves behave, not the reality of wolves.

Humans are obligatory social animals (we cannot survive without our group/society). These societies work because MOST OF THE TIME the humans in these groups do what they are supposed to. So not SLIGHTLY more often good than evil. Any human societies where this were not so would be at a severe competitive disadvantage against the human societies that co-operated better, and so eliminated in the course of human evolution.

Your "humans are more evil than good" comes from your religious ideology, not from observation of human behavior/human societies in the real world. I am less certain about the source of your misunderstanding of wolves. Perhaps your ideology is including "other animals are inferior" Iand even leaving out that "other")

Suggestion --- wolf behavior and pack society simpler than ours (less range/variation) so maybe easier to learn about? Read a couple books on "wolf behavior". It's a well researched subjectc (compared to the other canids) so these are readily readily available. Does this affect what you are describing as "wolfishness". You might simply decide "wolfishness is real, but in spite of the name, has nothing to do with wolves" (decide that wolves aren't "wolfish")

KEY POINT ---wolves are predators so any consideration of how wolves treat sheep irrelevant to good wolf/bad wolf. How wolves divide up the sheep carcass among themselves is relevant to good wolf/bad wolf.

[Immanuel Can]

But that really doesn't get to the original question. The question really was, Where does the "wolfishness" we both recognize come from?

It's important, Mike, isn't it? Wolves capitalize on those who believe there's enough sheepskin on their backs to make them harmless.

No, we really don't agree on basics.

No, but we do agree there are "wolves."

How do any exist, whomever you decide they are, if people are essentially good?

You really have no concept of how wolves behave.

It's what's called a "metaphor," Mike: and it was chosen by the Fabians, not by me.

Humans are obligatory social animals (we cannot survive without our group/society). These societies work because MOST OF THE TIME the humans in these groups do what they are supposed to.

Really? So explain how HAMAS works. Or how Iran has run for the last half century.

Your "humans are more evil than good" comes from your religious ideology, not from observation of human behavior/human societies in the real world.

Oh, that's obviously not the case. Anybody who takes even basic empirical observations from the real world recognizes that there are "wolves." How do you account for the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos of the world, for example?

Now, come on, Mike: you're not this oblivious. It's obviously merely a posture, designed to evade the question. But I know you're smart. You know what a metaphor is. And you know what I'm asking you.

Just answer, or say, "I really don't know." It's that easy.

[MikeNovack]

Did you REALLY interpret my saying "people are far more good than evil" to be a claim "each and every individual person is more good than evil". If so, let me clarify, I am making no such claim.

And yes I understand metaphor, but WHY do you choose "wolfish" (referring to humans) to mean evil? Human behavior toward other humans?. The way you are using "wolfish" would perhaps apply to behavior of humans to other animals (wolves to other animals).

The mice think our cats are EVIL.

[Immanuel Can]

Did you REALLY interpret my saying "people are far more good than evil" to be a claim "each and every individual person is more good than evil". If so,

No, I merely asked where "wolfishness" comes from. Are you going to answer?

And yes I understand metaphor, but WHY do you choose "wolfish" (referring to humans) to mean evil?

The Fabians chose the metaphor. But they were drawing on the Biblical tradition when they did so, so it wasn't really original with them. See Matt. 7:15.

Ironically, they're essentially calling themselves "ravenous wolves." And they're not apologizing for it: they're flaunting it. Why else would they ever have put it on their coat-of-arms? And why would they depict themselves as hammering the world into the shape they want, if they didn't see themselves as an elite that has the right to do that?

Now, quit the silliness about literal "wolves," and answer the question. Where does "wolfishness" come from, if people are essentially good?

Never mind. I can see you're determined not to face that question. But you do know the answer. I'm certain you do. The source of evil, at least the kind that issues in Holocausts and October 7ths, is -- human nature. That capacity is built right into us, just as we have capacity to choose to do otherwise. But it should disturb you that that potential is there at all.

It's ironic: people sometimes imagine that Christians are "avoiding reality." But not in the matter of evil. In that question, Christians face up to it square on. Rather, it's the secular optimists, the Atheists, the Humanists and whatnot that are completely devoid of answers. How can evil exist, when we're all supposed to be either morally neutral or positively good? Yet we all know that "wolfishness" exists...and so long as it does, certain kind of political arrangements will be exceedingly dangerous to us all.

It's not by accident that the Fabian self-styled "wolves" love Socialism. They know what they want. They know how to get it.

[Iwannaplato]

Not really. I'm not the one who believes people are essentially good. It's that person whose answer isn't obvious.

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

What's the basis of your supposition? I'm not seeing the logic there.

Maybe you can connect the dots you're connecting for me: why would people who are "not essentially good" be going to Heaven?

My apologies. I misread and was very surprised. I had a positive reaction and despite our differences wanted to acknowledge what surprised me, first checking to see if the implications were correct. But I misread. Things are back to status quo. I wouldn't say I believe people are essentially good, but it seemed a lovely, and now clearly hallucinated by me, counterweight on your personality. Ah, well.

Carry on.

[phyllo]

If the majority don't go to heaven, then God is a 'loser'.

[Immanuel Can]

So, most people are going to Heaven? The majority of humans?

What's the basis of your supposition? I'm not seeing the logic there.

Maybe you can connect the dots you're connecting for me: why would people who are "not essentially good" be going to Heaven?

My apologies. I misread and was very surprised.

No problem, then.

I wouldn't say I believe people are essentially good,...

It would be a hard optimism to sustain empirically, wouldn't it? I mean, evil has to come from somewhere...and if, as secular thought would lead us to believe, there are no such things as "spiritual" evils, and the events of the natural world are not inherently moral or immoral in any sense, just natural and thus non-moral issues, then we're left with only one option for explaining the existence of any evil: human beings.

So then, secularism would entail that we have only two strategies: one, to deny the very existence of evil or immoral things altogether...to deny that they have any objective existence at all, which runs quite contrary to our natural instinct about them; or two, to re-imagine them as necessary offscourings of natural processes, such as "survival of the fittest," offscourings that might displease us, but which we can never do anything to remove, ultimately, because they'll keep happening inexplicably, no matter how hard we try to eliminate them.

Neither of these intuitions answers the cry of our consciences, which keeps assuring us that something is genuinely wrong with the world, and more importantly, something is also genuinely wrong with at least a good deal of what human beings choose to do.

So if the infamous "problem of evil" is any challenge to Theism, it's far worse as a question for secular thought. Theists at least offer AN explanation, as well as a proposed remedy; but secularism does not provide any credible response at all...it just requires that we deny its real existence and/or to capitulate to it helplessly.

And then, Socialists want us to premise our political system and aspirations on the belief that mankind is simply morally-progressive and trustworthy. That evil, or evil men, is not going to prove to be any significant impediment to utopian dreams. They want us to act as if what we know about evil isn't true.

And the Fabian-types just love that.

The sheep's wool on the wolf doesn't have to be thick when the people you're manipulating are delusional about evil. They'll refuse to see it, even when the wool coat slips.

[Gary Childress]

So the Fabians are not what they seem. They don't want a better world for all. They just want a better world for themselves. Behind their talk of socialism and the welfare of all, they are only plotting to control the world for their own benefit. Is that correct? Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

And if that is correct, then where does that leave us all except in a world without any hope of salvation, except in a belief in a God (who may not exist) who will set things right, but only after we die (assuming death isn't oblivion for us)?

[Immanuel Can]

So the Fabians are not what they seem.

The Fabians are exactly what they say they are. They're elitist "wolves." Just believe what they tell you.

They don't want a better world for all. They just want a better world for themselves. Behind their talk of socialism and the welfare of all, they are only plotting to control the world for their own benefit. Is that correct?

If we believe what they say, yes.

Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

I have no idea where you get these ideas, Gary. Nobody has said anything like that.

Wealth may be ill-gotten or fairly-gotten. There is no one simple answer. It doesn't follow that because a man has wealth he's good; it also doesn't follow that he's certain to be evil. His bank account number will tell you absolutely nothing about how he got it, or about what his intentions with it are. Isn't that too obvious even to be stated?

And if that is correct,

It's not, really, but go ahead...

...then where does that leave us all except in a world without any hope of salvation, except in a belief in a God (who may not exist) who will set things right, but only after we die (assuming death isn't oblivion for us)?

What it tells us, Gary, is that there's no solution for mankind without addressing the real problem. The real problem is human nature. Something in human nature permits a lot of "wolfishness." And "wolfishness" is what makes all the lofty dreams of Socialist idealists so dangerous -- because they are built on a false vision of human nature, and they don't account for "wolfishness" at all.

[Gary Childress]

So the Fabians are not what they seem.

The Fabians are exactly what they say they are. They're elitist "wolves." Just believe what they tell you.

They don't want a better world for all. They just want a better world for themselves. Behind their talk of socialism and the welfare of all, they are only plotting to control the world for their own benefit. Is that correct?

If we believe what they say, yes.

Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

I have no idea where you get these ideas, Gary. Nobody has said anything like that.

Wealth may be ill-gotten or fairly-gotten. There is no one simple answer. It doesn't follow that because a man has wealth he's good; it also doesn't follow that he's certain to be evil. His bank account number will tell you absolutely nothing about how he got it, or about what his intentions with it are. Isn't that too obvious even to be stated?

And if that is correct,

It's not, really, but go ahead...

...then where does that leave us all except in a world without any hope of salvation, except in a belief in a God (who may not exist) who will set things right, but only after we die (assuming death isn't oblivion for us)?

What it tells us, Gary, is that there's no solution for mankind without addressing the real problem. The real problem is human nature. Something in human nature permits a lot of "wolfishness." And "wolfishness" is what makes all the lofty dreams of Socialist idealists so dangerous -- because they are built on a false vision of human nature, and they don't account for "wolfishness" at all.

Interesting choice of words. "Human nature" is something out of a person's control. It is an instinct or inclination overriding other factors. It's either God given or innately programmed in us by what is called "natural" forces.

So a wealthy person like Donald Trump is worse, better or just the same as someone like Joe Bidden? I mean, you seem to often come to Trump's defense when someone criticizes him but if someone criticizes Joe Bidden, then there can't be enough of it. Trump outright denies climate change and Biden, though ineffective, at least acknowledges that it's a problem. Doesn't denial seem worse to you?

[phyllo]

Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

I have no idea where you get these ideas, Gary. Nobody has said anything like that.

Wealth may be ill-gotten or fairly-gotten. There is no one simple answer. It doesn't follow that because a man has wealth he's good; it also doesn't follow that he's certain to be evil. His bank account number will tell you absolutely nothing about how he got it, or about what his intentions with it are. Isn't that too obvious even to be stated?

But if someone joins the Fabian Society, then you can be certain that he is evil. Right?

The real problem is human nature. Something in human nature permits a lot of "wolfishness."

Statistically, there are a lot more sheep than wolves.

Human nature must be sheepish.

[Impenitent]

Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

I have no idea where you get these ideas, Gary. Nobody has said anything like that.

Wealth may be ill-gotten or fairly-gotten. There is no one simple answer. It doesn't follow that because a man has wealth he's good; it also doesn't follow that he's certain to be evil. His bank account number will tell you absolutely nothing about how he got it, or about what his intentions with it are. Isn't that too obvious even to be stated?

But if someone joins the Fabian Society, then you can be certain that he is evil. Right?

The real problem is human nature. Something in human nature permits a lot of "wolfishness."

Statistically, there are a lot more sheep than wolves.

Human nature must be sheepish.

quite a few piggies as well as sheep

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Meanwhile, the wealthy who are getting wealthier and don't submit to any pesky sentiments such as the welfare of all, they are our friends, unlike the Fabians? Is that correct?

I have no idea where you get these ideas, Gary. Nobody has said anything like that.

Wealth may be ill-gotten or fairly-gotten. There is no one simple answer. It doesn't follow that because a man has wealth he's good; it also doesn't follow that he's certain to be evil. His bank account number will tell you absolutely nothing about how he got it, or about what his intentions with it are. Isn't that too obvious even to be stated?

But if someone joins the Fabian Society, then you can be certain that he is evil. Right?

If somebody joins the Fabian Society, all you know for sure is that he's voluntarily joined a society that styles themselves as "wolves." Beyond that, it's hard to guess whether that individual understands what he's joining or not, of course.

The real problem is human nature. Something in human nature permits a lot of "wolfishness."

Statistically, there are a lot more sheep than wolves. Human nature must be sheepish.

But then we come back to the problem question: if human beings are just sheep, then how do we get any wolves at all? Under that supposition, the problem of evil simply returns with a vengeance.

What's the answer?

[phyllo]

Pretty simple.

People are not good at all times and in every interaction.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But then we come back to the problem question: if human beings are just sheep, then how do we get any wolves at all? Under that supposition, the problem of evil simply returns with a vengeance.

What's the answer?

I have the answer and am quite at liberty to reveal it in depth and in such a way that all confusions are ended.