For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I'm not most people.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:54 pmYour heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:31 pmAs far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.
People do in fact define themselves as tribal factions. The more fearful/ less loving the less universal their sympathies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:47 pmWho needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.
Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.
If you have children you want them to be good?henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:59 pmI'm not most people.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:54 pmYour heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:31 pm
As far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.
Ditto, cuz my family is humankind.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:59 pmI'm not most people.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:54 pmYour heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:31 pm
As far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.
I want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:05 pmIf you have children you want them to be good?
Alas, divisive politicians encourage and normalize divisiveness, which is incompatible with human kindness.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:03 pmPeople do in fact define themselves as tribal factions. The more fearful/ less loving the less universal their sympathies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:47 pmWho needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.
Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.
You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries. Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??
Just keep in mind: you're not obligated to like 'em or carry 'em just cuz they're family.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:14 pmDitto, cuz my family is humankind.
Kind is the universalist ethichenry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:17 pmI want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.
Don't know if any of that falls under the umbrella of what you'd call good.
I don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.
I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??
Mebbe so.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:38 pmKind is the universalist ethichenry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:17 pmI want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.
Don't know if any of that falls under the umbrella of what you'd call good.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Who needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.
Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.
This from a theist.enjoy your politically correct freedomSculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:50 pmDemocrats uphold the spirit of 76. Whilst the Repugs are monarchists in all but name demanding obedience.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:21 pmthe democrat party proclaims their hatred of America as founded everyday
-Imp
Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ; in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:23 pmI don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.
I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??
Well, it certainly wasn't collectivist. In the midst of two societies divided by a history of racism, the Good Samaritan ignored the racially-privileged status of the wounded man, and risked his own financial and personal well-being to rescue somebody who didn't even belong to his own despised group. That's definitely not collectivism. Rather, it's a case of the good individual doing the right thing in an unusual situation.
True, but he put the responsibility for moral behaviour and choices squarely on the shoulders of the individual.in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.
Your interpretation is insufficient. The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ;
Well, it certainly wasn't collectivist. In the midst of two societies divided by a history of racism, the Good Samaritan ignored the racially-privileged status of the wounded man, and risked his own financial and personal well-being to rescue somebody who didn't even belong to his own despised group. That's definitely not collectivism. Rather, it's a case of the good individual doing the right thing in an unusual situation.
Social classes are not collectives. In certain cases for instance families or tribes the family or tribe may act as one unit regardless of members' individual powers. Jesus however was opposed to family and tribe collectives remember he said to leave mother and father . This was not an injunction not to honour these relationships (JC well knew the Mosaic law)but to get rid of vendettas and cabals.True, but he put the responsibility for moral behaviour and choices squarely on the shoulders of the individual.in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.
He never excused a person based on social group, as in "Well, he has to be like that -- he's a Samaritan," or privileged another social group, as in, "I'm just a poor carpenter from Galilee, so you owe me reparations and affirmative action," or "How great is it that I'm Jewish." He was entirely free of groupthink, and focused on the individual's relationship to God. In fact, he called out several "social groups" for thinking they were better than others, and could escape their individual responsibility by hiding in a collective -- as he did with the Pharisees and Sadducees, for example.