Philosophy Now Forum

Satyr, you opened this topic with the following:

Define morality.

Then offer your own explanation as to how it comes about - from where, if applicable - and how it applies universally.

It might help to have an outside definition of "morality". Here is one taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Notice that this definition doesn't get into specifying what the particular "morals" or "code of conduct" should be.

I believe morality comes about through the instinct or desire of human beings to "get along" or "cooperate" in their group in order to be happier or to avoid danger or pain at the hands of others. It may also improve the group's chances for survival. Looked at another way, it can be argued that human beings who happened to "get along" or "be nice" to others in their group tended better than others to survive to reproductive age and then to reproduce.

Universal application? Well, people in any group tend to want to be successful in their group, and following the group's code of conduct can help in this regard. "Universal" may refer only to a person's group, which could be a tribe, a town, a church congregation, a nation, or to all human beings on the planet -- as may become more apparently needed as population grows and people from all over the world interact.

This still says little about the specific "morals" or rules that make up the morality or code of conduct of the group. It would appear however, for the sake of success and survival, that cooperation and "getting along" is needed in the code -- e.g. the golden rule, maybe stated as "Treat yourself and others with kindness and respect".

Given this perspective, issues like abortion or same-sex marriage can only hurt the group if various individuals within the group disagree strongly or violently on these issues. As an extreme example, if everyone in the group agrees that two or more men or two or more women can enter a contract of marriage, then this becomes an accepted variation of the marriage custom, not a moral issue.

The main moral issue, I think, then appears to be: To cooperate with each other in terms of the basics of survival (food, shelter, hygiene, etc.), and the ability to stand against rival groups (weapons, spies, warfare strategy and tactics, etc.)

Mike Strand wrote:Satyr, you opened this topic with the following:

Define morality.

Then offer your own explanation as to how it comes about - from where, if applicable - and how it applies universally.

It might help to have an outside definition of "morality". Here is one taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Notice that this definition doesn't get into specifying what the particular "morals" or "code of conduct" should be.

Making morality a product of particular circumstances.

Mike Strand wrote:I believe morality comes about through the instinct or desire of human beings to "get along" or "cooperate" in their group in order to be happier or to avoid danger or pain at the hands of others.

Excellent...and by "other" I presume that you include other human beings.

Therefore, morality is a reaction to otherness; a compromise spurred on by a vulnerability (fear, weakness, ignorance).

In earlier periods we all knew every member in our tribe...today in these heterogeneous systems we know none but a very few...and of them we like fewer.
To deal with this the present moral codes offer the least-common-denominator as the shared attribute that we are supposed to sue to feel a kinship to strangers.
It is not an ascent....but a descent. It is not less simplification and generalization, but a larger more sophisticated form of it.

Mike Strand wrote:It may also improve the group's chances for survival. Looked at another way, it can be argued that human beings who happened to "get along" or "be nice" to others in their group tended better than others to survive to reproductive age and then to reproduce.

I mention this in my last post.

Therefore, morality is not an argument against any position, it is merely a defensive act against it.
Calling an idea "immoral" only exposes how impotent you are to argue against it. It uses emotion to compensate for a lack of intelligence.

Mike Strand wrote:Universal application? Well, people in any group tend to want to be successful in their group, and following the group's code of conduct can help in this regard. "Universal" may refer only to a person's group, which could be a tribe, a town, a church congregation, a nation, or to all human beings on the planet -- as may become more apparently needed as population grows and people from all over the world interact.

Therefore morality is a result of historical circumstances and not an all-encompassing rule. Religion attempted to make it so by making morality, and its codes of ethos, the word of an omnipotent god.

Also the term "humanity" does not apply, as different groups coming from different historical backgrounds have different variations of ethical behavior; morality being applicable in a time and place. That this present, modern, moral code is now attempting to integrate all under its umbrella can be considered an act of leveling....Globalization.

One group trying to dominate all others. Notice that these modern codes of conduct and thinking, under the name modern or liberal or progressive, or enlightened, or humanitarian, find the lowest common denominator; the broadest of all generalizations, the simplest common ground, in order to spread their all-leveling, all-encompassing code of conduct.

The present one accepts no other designation of identity except that of production and consuming.

So, now it does not matter what sex you are or from where you come from or what your ancestors did or thought. All that matters is that you are born human....the word being left ambiguous or connected to a simple act of reproductive sex. This sex then is stripped of its reproductive element to include the homosexual mutations, in this way further degrading identity.

If you can replicate with another then he is of your kind, no matter what other attributes characterize him/her. He is automatically deserving of your love and kindness and care.
But this no longer applies, as I noted. Now if you can penetrate him/her/it sexually and he accepts this, then you are of the same kind - sharing love, as it were.

Of course, this too is a lie, since it is not truly extended to all, but only those who accept the premises involved. So, a Muslim is not automatically loved and neither is a Nazi.
The Judeo-Christian ethos, now calling itself by a secular name, fails once more to live-up to its own standards. It sells love only to those who surrender to its mythos...just like with Christianity that offers salvation but only if you accept the Savior, Jesus Christ, into your heart.

It lowers the act of sex to that of penetration with no,purpose other than infertile ejaculation - hedonism. It lowers all down to immediate gratification - materialism.

Mike Strand wrote:This still says little about the specific "morals" or rules that make up the morality or code of conduct of the group. It would appear however, for the sake of success and survival, that cooperation and "getting along" is needed in the code -- e.g. the golden rule, maybe stated as "Treat yourself and others with kindness and respect".

It has a utilitarian value. But using it as an argument against someone is how idiots feel like they are thinking...when all they are doing, like all women do, is emoting.

For example, there is one simpleton on this very forum who when he is not threatening to silence anyone that exposes his qualities, asserts that Kant is to be ignored because he said things that do not adhere to his simplistic, materialistic, hedonistic, modern ethical standards and understandings...which mommy and daddy ingrained in his tiny brain from birth.
We see here how morality can act in a negative way by stunting a mind, preventive it from thinking outside its social and cultural box and making it fanatical about things it has no clue about.

Did not men in the past burn women as witches based on moral grounds?
Was not Bruno burned on a stake and Galileo placed under house arrest and threatened base don that times (modern) ethos?
Were not the Crusades a product of morality manipulating the common retard?

Imbeciles have existed throughout history, have they not?
Have not these imbeciles not always been the majority who required a strict ethical code to act rationally?

Mike Strand wrote:Given this perspective, issues like abortion or same-sex marriage can only hurt the group if various individuals within the group disagree strongly or violently on these issues. As an extreme example, if everyone in the group agrees that two or more men or two or more women can enter a contract of marriage, then this becomes a custom, not a moral issue.

Indeed...and the question now becomes: is this agreement, this moral commonality, an argument for the validity of a practice?
In Muslim countries and based on their agreed moral codes you can kill a woman for showing her hair. If the majority decides reality then how many realities are there?
We can say that a moral code is part of a greater meme that creates an artificial reality within which most, the majority, live in totally oblivious to anything outside of it, and considering their perspective the height of human advancement.

Baudrillard has written on this.

Mike Strand wrote:The main moral issue, I think, then appears to be: To cooperate with each other in terms of the basics of survival (food, shelter, hygiene, etc.), and the ability to stand against rival groups (weapons, spies, warfare strategy and tactics, etc.)

Now, the question you should ask yourself, besides the ones I mentioned already is, does survival become a goal you are willing to sacrifice reason and nobility and awareness to?

If in cooperating harmoniously within a huge group, most of which are strangers to you, you must blind yourself, make your self stupid, just to survive...is this a price you, personally, are willing to pay?
Christians convince themselves of the most childish absurdities just because they cannot live without them...are you willing to follow their lead and accept their practices just to fit in and cooperate...or are you going to fake it?

If your answer is that you are unwilling to sacrifice reason to survive and you choose to fake it, then I ask you another question: coming to a philosophy forum where, supposedly, all are here to share their honest opinions, why would you not stop faking it and speak your mind?

"Morality", as I've portrayed it, is a utilitarian concept. And "faking" is part of "getting along" in the group you are born into, captured by, "stuck with", or whatever. Only a lucky few, I think, feel entirely at ease with their home society. Or maybe I should say an unlucky minority don't feel entirely at ease -- but my point is the same.

Even in a small family setting, a lot of us have to "fake" it from time to time, to avoid confrontations that are even less desirable than the faking. Following the code of conduct is part of civilization - any civilization.

The alternative, absolute honesty in action and word, according to my own personal code or feelings or thought, would get me into trouble with people I care about. Morality, then, requires a certain amount of personal sacrifice -- in some societies this is the case more than in others. Your description of some (not all) Muslim societies is a telling one in this regard.

Written forums like this one, at least, are good outlets for "honest" words. Trouble is, a lot of it gets into personal and pointless name-calling and pandering or attacks based on unverified assumptions about another writer's character, personality, culture, etc. The ostensible purpose, I think, of a philosophy forum is to examine concepts and ideas with clear writing and avoidance of baiting or argumentum ad hominem. However, I can still write what I want here, and that can be fun and exciting, provided the forum sponsors don't delete my account.

I doubt you can write what you want here.
Not unless what you want falls in line with some common moral system.

I would say all civilization is based on a lie.
Some play along, the many actually believe it to be true.

The problem with this is when you participate in an arena where all are invited and respected. Suddenly the many who believe the lie to be true drown out or feel threatened and begin assault the one who know that most of what is considered "self-evident" is really a convenient lie.

You may be right, Satyr, that all civilization is based on a lie. What is the lie? Maybe that we all, deep inside, want to be "nice" to each other. The reality may be that a lot of us would rather rape, pillage, kill, steal, and destroy, along the lines of the Vikings, or the author Terry Pratchett's funny and revealing character, Cohen the Barbarian. Also, to cuss a lot.

Trouble is, I think a lot of people really do want to be nice to others, and civilization has put a lid on the rapers and pillagers -- by use of even stronger force, ironically. Or at least by the power of "majority disapproval".

Mike Strand wrote:You may be right, Satyr, that all civilization is based on a lie. What is the lie? Maybe that we all, deep inside, want to be "nice" to each other. The reality may be that a lot of us would rather rape, pillage, kill, steal, and destroy, along the lines of the Vikings, or the author Terry Pratchett's funny and revealing character, Cohen the Barbarian. Also, do a lot of cussing.

I love how you resort to hyperbole. If it is not this then it is the other extreme.
Either/Or dualism.

Fact is, rape, pillage, and violence still continue and they do because they evolved for a reason.

Mike Strand wrote:Trouble is, I think a lot of people really do want to be nice to others, and civilization has put a lid on the rapers and pillagers -- by use of even stronger force, ironically. Or at least by the power of "majority disapproval".

Yes, violence, like emotion, should be controlled....particularly amongst the rabble who are given an equal standing.

Here are some shared lies:

-All deserve life

-Life is precious

-If you persist you shall succeed

-All are Equal

-Appearance does not matter

-The past does not affect the present

-Quantity is better than Quality

-All perspectives are equally valid

-Kin selection is not a factor

-Sex and race are irrelevant

-We live in a Democracy

-There is no censorship

-Political-correctness is productive

-There is a God

-Evolution is random

-Natural selection is evil

-There is such a thing as justice

-Beauty is skin-deep

-There exists an immutable core, a spirit

-Stupidity is not on the rise

-Saying something negative about another human being means you wish to kill them

-Discrimination is bad

Right on, Satyr -- and I agree with all of your "shared lies" except maybe for "stupidity is not on the rise". It may actually not be on the rise; it may be about where it's always been, and that's sufficient to perpetuate the problems (or challenges or, laughably, "opportunities") that human beings still face.

But assuming stupidity exists leads to a tendency to propound meritocracy. However, who picks the leaders, if stupidity is rampant? How will the capable ones rise to positions of power and responsibility? (Careful, quiet use of intimidation and force?) And who's to say that people who are deserving (or view themselves as deserving) are not already in charge? Aren't the superior ones, by definition, the ones that naturally rise to the top? Where does that put me? Among the stupid, I guess (har, har).

If you're ordinary (a euphemism, maybe, for stupid), it's best, I think, to keep a low profile, avoid most people, and live within your means. You can still be relatively happy.

By the way, I like the forum because it's a place to practice writing. My goal is to be clear, if not truthful or profound.

Mike Strand wrote:Right on, Satyr -- and I agree with all of your "shared lies" except maybe for "stupidity is not on the rise". It may actually not be on the rise; it may be about where it's always been, and that's sufficient to perpetuate the problems (or challenges or, laughably, "opportunities") that human beings still face.

This is only part of your naivete.

Mike Strand wrote:But assuming stupidity exists leads to a tendency to propound meritocracy. However, who picks the leaders, if stupidity is rampant?

Leaders are picked by those who cultivate stupidity and know the methods to manipulate it.

One idiot is harmless...thousands of them are dangerous.

Husbandry has reached a very sophisticated level. Now the slave is his own guard.

Mike Strand wrote:How will the capable ones rise to positions of power and responsibility? (Careful, quiet use of intimidation and force?)

Under these conditions why would they?
They would probably hunker-down and go underground.

Mike Strand wrote:And who's to say that people who are deserving (or view themselves as deserving) are not already in charge?

Who said?
I said those in charge cultivate stupidity because it is easier to control than intelligence.

Mike Strand wrote:Aren't the superior ones, by definition, the ones that naturally rise to the top? Where does that put me? Among the stupid, I guess (har, har).

History is about the struggle to rise to the top.
The methods today are more insidious.

Mike Strand wrote:If you're ordinary (a euphemism, maybe, for stupid), it's best, I think, to keep a low profile, avoid most people, and live within your means. You can still be relatively happy.

That would be too wise for a stupid person. A stupid person would come to an internet forum and talk about science without knowing what the #1 is....or state the Genetic Drift means evolution works on luck or declare Kant a douche-bag and then expose himself as being ignorant as to what Kant said and why.

Or he would come here and audaciously declare that the environment does not affect genetic mutations which is the basis for Evolution Theory.

Or he would dismiss any perspective on moral grounds.

All this to preserve the safety and comfort of remaining dumb as shit, and the preferred type for those who control him and tell him he is free because he has a choice between Coke and Pepsi..

Mike Strand wrote:By the way, I like the forum because it's a place to practice writing. My goal is to be clear, if not truthful or profound.

Ah, fiction.
Then morality is perfect for you.

By the way...this morality you live under, is anti-nature, anti-life, anti-man.
But that's another story.

The psychology of crowd.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:• Ideas being only accessible to crowds after having assumed a very simple shape must often undergo the most thoroughgoing transformation to become popular. It is especially when we are dealing with somewhat lofty philosophic and scientific ideas that we see how far-reaching are the modifications they require in order to lower them to the level of the intelligence of crowds.


• This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence. The decisions affecting matters of general interest come to by an assembly of men of distinction, but specialists in different walks of life, are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles. The truth is, they can only bring to bear in common on the work in hand those mediocre qualities which are the birthright of every average individual.
In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. It is not all the world, as is so often repeated, that has more wit than Voltaire, but assuredly Voltaire that has more wit than all the world, if by "all the world" crowds are to be understood.


• The fundamental characteristics of the race, which constitute the unvarying source from which all our sentiments spring, always exert an influence on the irritability of crowds, their impulsiveness and their mobility, as on all the popular sentiments we shall have to study. All crowds are doubtless always irritable and impulsive, but with great variations of degree. For instance, the difference between a Latin and an Anglo-Saxon crowd is striking.
The most recent facts in French history throw a vivid light on this point. The mere publication, twenty-five years ago, of a telegram, relating an insult supposed to have been offered an ambassador, was sufficient to determine an explosion of fury, whence followed immediately a terrible war. Some years later the telegraphic announcement of an insignificant reverse at Langson provoked a fresh explosion which brought about the instantaneous overthrow of the government. At the same moment a much more serious reverse undergone by the English expedition to Khartoum produced only a slight emotion in England, and no ministry was overturned. Crowds are everywhere distinguished by feminine characteristics, but Latin crowds are the most feminine of all.


• Foremost among the dominant ideas of the present epoch is to be found the notion that instruction is capable of considerably changing men, and has for its unfailing consequence to improve them and even to make them equal. By the mere fact of its being constantly repeated, this assertion has ended by becoming one of the most steadfast democratic dogmas. It would be as difficult now to attack it as it would have been formerly to have attacked the dogmas of the Church.
On this point, however, as on many others, democratic ideas are in profound disagreement with the results of psychology and experience.

Many eminent philosophers, among them Herbert Spencer, have had no difficulty in showing that instruction neither renders a man more moral nor happier, that it changes neither his instincts nor his hereditary passions, and that at times -- for this to happen it need only be badly directed -- it is much more pernicious than useful. Statisticians have brought confirmation of these views by telling us that criminality increases with the generalisation of instruction, or at any rate of a certain kind of instruction, and that the worst enemies of society, the anarchists, are recruited among the prize-winners of schools; while in a recent work a distinguished magistrate, M. Adolphe Guillot, made the observation that at present 3,000 educated criminals are met with for every 1,000 illiterate delinquents, and that in fifty years the criminal percentage of the population has passed from 227 to 552 for every 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 133 per cent.
He has also noted in common with his colleagues that criminality is particularly on the increase among young persons, for whom, as is known, gratuitous and obligatory schooling has —in France — replaced apprenticeship.


• The State, which manufactures by dint of textbooks all these persons possessing diplomas, can only utilise a small number of them, and is forced to leave the others without employment. It is obliged in consequence to resign itself to feeding the first mentioned and to having the others as its enemies. From the top to the bottom of the social pyramid, from the humblest clerk to the professor and the prefect, the immense mass of persons boasting diplomas besiege the professions. While a business man has the greatest difficulty in finding an agent to represent him in the colonies, thousands of candidates solicit the most modest official posts.
There are 20,000 schoolmasters and mistresses without employment in the department of the Seine alone, all of them persons who, disdaining the fields or the workshops, look to the State for their livelihood. The number of the chosen being restricted, that of the discontented is perforce immense. The latter are ready for any revolution, whoever be its chiefs and whatever the goal they aim at. The acquisition of knowledge for which no use can be found is a sure method of driving a man to revolt.


• When studying the imagination of crowds we saw that it is particularly open to the impressions produced by images. These images do not always lie ready to hand, but it is possible to evoke them by the judicious employment of words and formulas. Handled with art, they possess in sober truth the mysterious power formerly attributed to them by the adepts of magic. They cause the birth in the minds of crowds of the most formidable tempests, which in turn they are capable of stilling. A pyramid far loftier than that of old Cheops could be raised merely with the bones of men who have been victims of the power of words and formulas.
The power of words is bound up with the images they evoke, and is quite independent of their real significance. Words whose sense is the most ill-defined are sometimes those that possess the most influence. Such, for example, are the terms democracy, socialism, equality, liberty, &c., whose meaning is so vague that bulky volumes do not suffice to precisely fix it. Yet it is certain that a truly magical power is attached to those short syllables, as if they contained the solution of all problems. They synthesise the most diverse unconscious aspirations and the hope of their realisation.
Reason and arguments are incapable of combatting certain words and formulas. They are uttered with solemnity in the presence of crowds, and as soon as they have been pronounced an expression of respect is visible on every countenance, and all heads are bowed. By many they are considered as natural forces, as supernatural powers. They evoke grandiose and vague images in men's minds, but this very vagueness that wraps them in obscurity augments their mysterious power. They are the mysterious divinities hidden behind the tabernacle, which the devout only approach in fear and trembling.


• Numerous are the words whose meaning has thus profoundly changed from age to age — words which we can only arrive at understanding in the sense in which they were formerly understood after a long effort. It has been said with truth that much study is necessary merely to arrive at conceiving what was signified to our great grandfathers by such words as the "king" and the "royal family." What, then, is likely to be the case with terms still more complex? Words, then, have only mobile and transitory significations which change from age to age and people to people; and when we desire to exert an influence by their means on the crowd what it is requisite to know is the meaning given them by the crowd at a given moment, and not the meaning which they formerly had or may yet have for individuals of a different mental constitution. Thus, when crowds have come, as the result of political upheavals or changes of belief, to acquire a profound antipathy for the images evoked by certain words, the first duty of the true statesman is to change the words without, of course, laying hands on the things themselves, the latter being too intimately bound up with the inherited constitution to be transformed.

The judicious Tocqueville long ago made the remark that the work of the consulate and the empire consisted more particularly in the clothing with new words of the greater part of the institutions of the past —that is to say, in replacing words evoking disagreeable images in the imagination of the crowd by other words of which the novelty prevented such evocations.
The "taille" or tallage has become the land tax; the "gabelle," the tax on salt; the "aids," the indirect contributions and the consolidated duties; the tax on trade companies and guilds, the license, &c. One of the most essential functions of statesmen consists, then, in baptizing with popular or, at any rate, indifferent words things the crowd cannot endure under their old names. The power of words is so great that it suffices to designate in well-chosen terms the most odious things to make them acceptable to crowds.

Taine justly observes that it was by invoking liberty and fraternity—words very popular at the time — that the Jacobins were able “to install a despotism worthy of Dahomey, a tribunal similar to that of the Inquisition, and to accomplish human hecatombs akin to those of ancient Mexico.” The art of those who govern, as is the case with the art of advocates, consists above all in the science of employing words.
One of the greatest difficulties of this art is, that in one and the same society the same words most often have very different meanings for the different social classes, who employ in appearance the same words, but never speak the same language.


• The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological crowd is the following: Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.

There are certain ideas and feelings which do not come into being, or do not transform themselves into acts except in the case of individuals forming a crowd. The psychological crowd is a provisional being formed of heterogeneous elements, which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by their reunion a new being which displays characteristics very different from those possessed by each of the cells singly.


• To obtain at any rate a glimpse of them it is necessary in the first place to call to mind the truth established by modern psychology, that unconscious phenomena play an altogether preponderating part not only in organic life, but also in the operations of the intelligence. The conscious life of the mind is of small importance in comparison with its unconscious life. The most subtle analyst, the most acute observer, is scarcely successful in discovering more than a very small number of the unconscious motives that determine his conduct. Our conscious acts are the outcome of an unconscious substratum created in the mind in the main by hereditary influences. This substratum consists of the innumerable common characteristics handed down from generation to generation, which constitute the genius of a race.

Behind the avowed causes of our acts there undoubtedly lie secret causes that we do not avow, but behind these secret causes there are many others more secret still which we ourselves ignore. The greater part of our daily actions are the result of hidden motives which escape our observation.


• As soon as a certain number of living beings are gathered together, whether they be animals or men, they place themselves instinctively under the authority of a chief. In the case of human crowds the chief is often nothing more than a ringleader or agitator, but as such he plays a considerable part. His will is the nucleus around which the opinions of the crowd are grouped and attain to identity. He constitutes the first element towards the organisation of heterogeneous crowds, and paves the way for their organisation in sects; in the meantime he directs them. A crowd is a servile flock that is incapable of ever doing without a master.

The leader has most often started as one of the led. He has himself been hypnotised by the idea, whose apostle he has since become. It has taken possession of him to such a degree that everything outside it vanishes, and that every contrary opinion appears to him an error or a superstition. An example in point is Robespierre, hypnotised by the philosophical ideas of Rousseau, and employing the methods of the Inquisition to propagate them.


• When it is wanted to stir up a crowd for a short space of time, to induce it to commit an act of any nature — to pillage a palace, or to die in defence of a stronghold or a barricade, for instance —the crowd must be acted upon by rapid suggestion, among which example is the most powerful in its effect.

To attain this end, however, it is necessary that the crowd should have been previously prepared by certain circumstances, and, above all, that he who wishes to work upon it should possess the quality to be studied farther on, to which I give the name of prestige. When, however, it is proposed to imbue the mind of a crowd with ideas and beliefs — with modern social theories, for instance — the leaders have recourse to different expedients. The principal of them are three in number and clearly defined — affirmation, repetition, and contagion.

Their action is somewhat slow, but its effects, once produced, are very lasting. Affirmation pure and simple, kept free of all reasoning and all proof, is one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds. The conciser an affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration, the more weight it carries. The religious books and the legal codes of all ages have always resorted to simple affirmation. Statesmen called upon to defend a political cause, and commercial men pushing the sale of their products by means of advertising are acquainted with the value of affirmation.


• The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the power is seen which it exercises on the most enlightened minds. This power is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives of our actions are forged. At the end of a certain time we have forgotten who is the author of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing it.

To this circumstance is due the astonishing power of advertisements. When we have read a hundred, a thousand, times that X's chocolate is the best, we imagine we have heard it said in many quarters, and we end by acquiring the certitude that such is the fact. When we have read a thousand times that Y's flour has cured the most illustrious persons of the most obstinate maladies, we are tempted at last to try it when suffering from an illness of a similar kind. If we always read in the same papers that A is an arrant scamp and B a most honest man we finish by being convinced that this is the truth, unless, indeed, we are given to reading another paper of the contrary opinion, in which the two qualifications are reversed. Affirmation and repetition are alone powerful enough to combat each other.


• For individuals to succumb to contagion their simultaneous presence on the same spot is not indispensable. The action of contagion may be felt from a distance under the influence of events which give all minds an individual trend and the characteristics peculiar to crowds. This is especially the case when men's minds have been prepared to undergo the influence in question by those remote factors of which I have made a study above. An example in point is the revolutionary movement of 1848, which, after breaking out in Paris, spread rapidly over a great part of Europe and shook a number of thrones.


• Contagion is so powerful a force that even the sentiment of personal interest disappears under its action. This is the explanation of the fact that every opinion adopted by the populace always ends in implanting itself with great vigour in the highest social strata, however obvious be the absurdity of the triumphant opinion.
This reaction of the lower upon the higher social classes is the more curious, owing to the circumstance that the beliefs of the crowd always have their origin to a greater or less extent in some higher idea, which has often remained without influence in the sphere in which it was evolved.
Leaders and agitators, subjugated by this higher idea, take hold of it, distort it and create a sect which distorts it afresh, and then propagates it amongst the masses, who carry the process of deformation still further.
Become a popular truth the idea returns, as it were, to its source and exerts an influence on the upper classes of a nation. In the long run it is intelligence that shapes the destiny of the world, but very indirectly. The philosophers who evolve ideas have long since returned to dust, when, as the result of the process I have just described, the fruit of their reflection ends by triumphing.


• With the progressive perishing of its ideal the race loses more and more the qualities that lent it its cohesion, its unity, and its strength. The personality and intelligence of the individual may increase, but at the same time this collective egoism of the race is replaced by an excessive development of the egoism of the individual, accompanied by a weakening of character and a lessening of the capacity for action. What constituted a people, a unity, a whole, becomes in the end an agglomeration of individualities lacking cohesion, and artificially held together for a time by its traditions and institutions. It is at this stage that men, divided by their interests and aspirations, and incapable any longer of self-government, require directing in their pettiest acts, and that the State exerts an absorbing influence. With the definite loss of its old ideal the genius of the race entirely disappears; it is a mere swarm of isolated individuals and returns to its original state — that of a crowd. Without consistency and without a future, it has all the transitory characteristics of crowds.

Its civilization is now without stability, and at the mercy of every chance. The populace is sovereign, and the tide of barbarism mounts. The civilization may still seem brilliant because it possesses an outward front, the work of a long past, but it is in reality an edifice crumbling to ruin, which nothing supports, and destined to fall in at the first storm. To pass in pursuit of an ideal from the barbarous to the civilized state, and then, when this ideal has lost its virtue, to decline and die, such is the cycle of the life of a people.


• Public opinion no longer knows anything but extreme sentiment or profound indifference. It is terribly feminine, and like a woman, has no control over its reflect movements.

One more immoral "douche-bag" so you best keep moving on.

There is nothing the "ordinary" person can do regarding the lies in society. The world turns on money. No matter if you are intelligent or educated, the ordinary, stupid person can be the one who is powerfully RICH. That is the bottom line of all things today. Money. There are millions of people concerned about nature and what money is doing to the planet. Nothing will be done to rectify this as, it interferes with the billions of dollars earned. People who are heads of countries can be movie stars,no less, all have one factor in common, money. The world has become an unnatural place. Nature now resides in zoos, in books, how close to nature do any one of you reside. When did you last see a flock of birds in the sky. Or if you have, did you look up in wonder, a miracle of nature, so rare is it to see. We live in a world today, where a failure in the electricty for an hour brings everything to a halt, if there is a petrol shortage, see how human behavior changes. Millions of people feel powerless and want change, but are helpless. Lay your rage to rest.

Satyr wrote:

Notvacka wrote:Playing dumb does not suit your style.

What suits my style is adapting to the person I am dealing with.
If you see dumb it's because I'm accentuating your essence and following your "reasoning" to its final end.

That humans exist is not an argument for anything.
Categories are all generalizations. The more detail a generalization incorporates in its formulation the more precise it is.
"Human" is so vast and simple that when your kind accuses others of over-generalizations it just makes you look silly.

I take that back. Playing dumb is your style.

You play loose with definitions or demand the absolute, as it suits you. Of course categories are all generalisations. That's how categories work. "Human" is too vast and simple for you? Might as well categorise you as a rock? Consider yourself some kind of Übermensch mutation, too special to recognise other humans as others of your kind? The fact that others like you exist means nothing?

You know what a "human" is. You know that you are one. You know that it means something.

Satyr wrote:All actions are the self acting and so are selfish by definition. All actions entail a reward, either real or delusional.

So what? It's what you do that matters. It's "do unto others" not "feel self-righteous about it".

Satyr wrote:Politeness is communal hypocrisy.

Again, it can be. Not everybody has an urge to act as an asshole all the time.

Satyr wrote:So if you convince yourself you are God then you are not pretending to be God?

Correct. In my understanding, "pretending", just like "lying" involves an element of deliberate falsehood. If you believe yourself to be God, you are probably making a mistake; if you tell others that you are God, you are probably making an even bigger mistake, but you are not pretending or lying. It's a rather ridiculous example anyway, since playing God convincingly is a lot harder than just playing nice.

Satyr wrote:Really? You think the economy, as it is today, is regulated?

Not in the way or to the extent I would like, but it's not as "free" as most free market enthusiasts seem to believe.

Satyr wrote:....it functions under the delusion, self-imposed or not, that human beings are "good" and that there is no human nature.

Nonsense. Everything humans do is human nature, and it's changing. We are capable of "good" as well as "bad". And what constitutes "good" or "bad" is defined by us.

Satyr wrote:Your morality is only moral because of this periods circumstances. It's demographics and shrinking spaces and dwindling resources and the geopolitical arena that makes your morality necessary...not transcendental and superior but necessary. There were times and places where other morals dominated...and they were necessary for that time and palce.

So, not only does morality work, it's necessary. And you admit that your stone age fantasy morals are no longer valid. Feels almost weird to agree with you.

Satyr wrote:Yes, dear a cancer cell is a cell that goes haywire and refuses to fit into the status quo...it resists integration. The docile, disciplined, automaton, cell simply fits in, does not resit, does it's job and shut up...like you propose all should do on moral grounds.

That's not what I propose. But I'm rather used to your distortions by now. Fancy yourself a cancer upon society then.

Satyr wrote:Being integrated into a whole demands that you are stripped of your individuality, your independence....your resistance. The larger the whole the more stripping is demanded; the lower the common denominator use to fuse the heterogeneous parts into a singular identification...as in "humanity".

That's not true at all. A larger whole and a lower common denominator allows more individual freedom, not less. Modern morals allow for much greater diversity within the group than your fantasy stone age morals ever did.

Satyr wrote:It seems that the only thing you have to possess to be considered human these days are the physical parts and the "right" attitude, the correct behavior (pretended or not)....

That's not true. The bar is even lower; people who make assholes of themselves are still considered human.

Satyr wrote:You seem to think the only social system available is this one...or that there are no fragmentation within this social system...

More distortions. The present system is what we have here and now. Wherever we wish to go, we have to get there from here. But you seem to be moving backwards.

Satyr wrote:Who is permitted to think outside the "permitted" boundaries of what you would call "ethical"?

You are, for instance.

Satyr wrote:The moment he does he is assaulted, accused of hatred of being ill, or promoting violence...ironically those deluding themselves that they are on the side of healthy discourse and peace are the ones threatening with ostracization or physical damage anyone who crosses a "line".

You can't be talking about me, then. All I ever did was call you an asshole. (Deservedly, I might add.)

Notvacka wrote:
You play loose with definitions or demand the absolute, as it suits you. Of course categories are all generalisations. That's how categories work. "Human" is too vast and simple for you? Might as well categorise you as a rock? Consider yourself some kind of Übermensch mutation, too special to recognise other humans as others of your kind? The fact that others like you exist means nothing?

What I fancy myself as, has nothing to do with this topic.
But you are making this personal, aren't you little woman?
I know it's hard to detach yourself from your feelings and personal interests, but do try.

Notvacka wrote:You know what a "human" is. You know that you are one. You know that it means something.

What I know is that biology is not enough...yet your ilk denies biology while turning to it when you "fancy" it.
Just because I can get a female pregnant does not make her anyone I want to consider "my kind".
But if your definitions are so loose as to be based on the appearances you deny when it gets uncomfortable, then please continue.

It's funny....we are all alike because we look alike...buuuut when we see differences in appearance then it's all "superficial".

Tell me...if you put a cat and a dog within a controlled environment and you enforce a strict code of conduct, applied the same to both; using threat and benefit as a tool of training them to behave in a uniform manner...at the end of the training is the dog and the cat the same?
The behave alike, follow the same routines, react the same way to the same stimuli, because you've made sure that they do...therefore cats and dogs are superficial designation, right?

Notvacka wrote:So what? It's what you do that matters. It's "do unto others" not "feel self-righteous about it".

And yet your ilk does just that.
You are "right-eous" because what you believe feels good and is popular.

Notvacka wrote:Again, it can be. Not everybody has an urge to act as an asshole all the time.

Or ever.

One is urged to act like an "asshole" when surrounded with self-righteous, "moral", imbeciles claiming to be "right" simply because they can adopt and hold onto an opinion...or that they deserve compassion and consideration because they look human, and can reproduce with another imbecile...but appearances in any other case are superficial and cruel when used to judge or to distinguish.
Our senses are only reliable, it seems, when we are looking for reasons to feel unified and the same and alike...when not then they are unreliable and we need an institutional expert to verify divergence.

Notvacka wrote:Correct. In my understanding, "pretending", just like "lying" involves an element of deliberate falsehood. If you believe yourself to be God, you are probably making a mistake; if you tell others that you are God, you are probably making an even bigger mistake, but you are not pretending or lying. It's a rather ridiculous example anyway, since playing God convincingly is a lot harder than just playing nice.

Then you missed the point, didn't ya?
To lie effectively, when the other has also evolved the capacity to discern duplicity, means you have to up the ante...by lying and convincing yourself of your own lies.

The best liars actually believe their own lies...they become defensive and feel offended when you expose their duplicity.
Like you, for instance.

Notvacka wrote:Nonsense. Everything humans do is human nature, and it's changing. We are capable of "good" as well as "bad". And what constitutes "good" or "bad" is defined by us.

Yes, dear...and you define it in accordance to your self-interests or the bullshit you were raised to believe is "self-evident" because it feels good.

Notvacka wrote:So, not only does morality work, it's necessary. And you admit that your stone age fantasy morals are no longer valid. Feels almost weird to agree with you.

"Stone Age" sweetie. Here you are again, my progressive princess, thinking that what is modern or current is automatically superior to the past.

Thinking something is useful does not make it transcendental, universal, eternal or holy.
I do not fool myself into believing that all are equal, dear...even if I am forced to pretend that they are.

Hate is also useful...and so is discrimination...and so is violence.
Forgive me for pointing this out, my dear, but if you eat meat....violence has been perpetuated on your behalf...and if you enjoy a middle-class western lifestyle then many poor bastards somewhere else are going hungry and have no shoes on their feet...and if you use gasoline people have been killed ot ensure that you get what you "deserve".

So, please, continue playing the innocent, self-righteous victim.

Notvacka wrote:That's not what I propose. But I'm rather used to your distortions by now. Fancy yourself a cancer upon society then.

What I fancy is not the issue...but here you are, just like your kind does, turning this personal.
Then if I call you a moron, you will cry bloody hell and go off in a huff...or you might go running to the A-Mod retard pretending to be objective, just to get me banned...or you might offer me $1,000 to come there so you can beat me up.

Notvacka wrote:That's not true at all. A larger whole and a lower common denominator allows more individual freedom, not less. Modern morals allow for much greater diversity within the group than your fantasy stone age morals ever did.

I know that's the mythology you prefer but unfortunately the truth is that when being integrated into a group you must curb your freedom; the larger the group the more you must curb and repress your activities and censor your words and limit your actions.
Social insects like ants and bees make harmonious wholes because they have no identity, no personality no sense of self. Larger brained species have a harder time creating stable groups...dear.

The only "freedom" you have is to act within the parameters you are allowed to act within.

Notvacka wrote:That's not true. The bar is even lower; people who make assholes of themselves are still considered human.

See how an idiot, like you, turns to indirect insults?
Listen stupid, an "asshole" would face the social consequences, would he not?

This is why you would never know who I was. You would consider me a "nice guy". You would be convinced that I respected you and cared about your feelings and your views.

Notvacka wrote:You are, for instance.

No, moron, I am not...because if I told you exactly what I thought of you, you would go running to the authorities and you would ignore me.

Oh sweetie...you are so naive...or are you a hypocrite?

Notvacka wrote:You can't be talking about me, then. All I ever did was call you an asshole. (Deservedly, I might add.)

And your judgment has proven to be as good as gold...therefore me calling you a **** and a RETARD will be taken as an act of adapting to your "moral" level.

Then, later, you can claim that I was a bully and used ad hom methods...right ****?!
In your tiny mind you will be the innocent victim again....loyal to your bullshit, advanced, progressive, moral code.

Remember...life is about a continuous advance upwards. History teaches this to us.
Like how the Dark Ages were more advanced and modern when compared to the Roman Golden Age.

Jeez, you are stupid...oh wait was that was an insult on my part?
Forgive me....you were being so polite and objective...
How dare I break your social codes of graciousness.

Now Fuck Off.
Go discuss Kant with the other moron...or Evolution Theory with the British Queen.
Clean it up for the kids.

--erroneous reference

Satyr wrote:

Notvacka wrote:
You play loose with definitions or demand the absolute, as it suits you. Of course categories are all generalisations. That's how categories work. "Human" is too vast and simple for you? Might as well categorise you as a rock? Consider yourself some kind of Übermensch mutation, too special to recognise other humans as others of your kind? The fact that others like you exist means nothing?

What I fancy myself as, has nothing to do with this topic.
But you are making this personal, aren't you little woman?
I know it's hard to detach yourself from your feelings and personal interests, but do try.

I honestly didn't think that a bit of sarcasm would bother you. I would offer my sincere apologies, if I thought you would believe that they were indeed sincere. But since you don't appreciate that kind of politeness, I won't offend you further by feigning any regret.

Besides, is it really in line with your philosophy to detach yourself from your feelings and personal interests? Are they not part of your cherished individuality? And would trying to do so not also be (using your own type of reasoning) fake? Because detaching yourself from parts of what you are, is, in fact, impossible.

Satyr wrote:Thinking something is useful does not make it transcendental, universal, eternal or holy.

Transcendental, universal, eternal or holy? Those are your words, not mine. Usefulness is always defined with some particular goal in mind. If you wish to use such grand words, they should describe the goal, not the tools. You keep retruning to "nature" and "evolution" as if some goal or purpose could be found there. But evolution has no goal. It serves no purpose. We can't look to nature for directions; we must define our goals ourselves.

Satyr wrote:I do not fool myself into believing that all are equal, dear...even if I am forced to pretend that they are.

We are not equal. Nobody is foolish enough to believe such a thing, or even foolish enough pretend to believe it. It's your favourite distortion. Equality is an ideal, an uttainable goal, and as such, it's supposed to contradict reality. Pointing out that we are not equal in reality is not an argument against equality being a worthy goal.

Satyr wrote:Hate is also useful...and so is discrimination...and so is violence.

Yes. That's why "useful" is meaningless unless it's defined with some particular goal in mind. What goal do you have in mind?

Satyr wrote:Listen stupid, an "asshole" would face the social consequences, would he not?

This is why you would never know who I was. You would consider me a "nice guy". You would be convinced that I respected you and cared about your feelings and your views.

So, you can be polite when it suits you. Fine.

Besides, I am convinced that you do care about my feelings and my views. You just tell yourself that you don't. One pretense is as good as another and it's not a lie if you believe it.

Satyr wrote:

Notvacka wrote:You can't be talking about me, then. All I ever did was call you an asshole. (Deservedly, I might add.)

And your judgment has proven to be as good as gold...therefore me calling you a **** and a RETARD will be taken as an act of adapting to your "moral" level.

Then, later, you can claim that I was a bully and used ad hom methods...right ****?!
In your tiny mind you will be the innocent victim again....loyal to your bullshit, advanced, progressive, moral code.

Remember...life is about a continuous advance upwards. History teaches this to us.
Like how the Dark Ages were more advanced and modern when compared to the Roman Golden Age.

Jeez, you are stupid...oh wait was that was an insult on my part?
Forgive me....you were being so polite and objective...
How dare I break your social codes of graciousness.

Now Fuck Off.
Go discuss Kant with the other moron...or Evolution Theory with the British Queen.
Clean it up for the kids.

See how easy it is, my dear?