Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm**

"I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

It's true. Almost every human being believes they must have a government to run their life, or, if not their own life exactly, at least everyone else's life. They all disagree on exactly what a government should be and do, but they all agree that the way to determine that is by consensus. "A government should represent the people," by which they mean, everyone should have a vote about what the government is and does.

Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes, and with some rare exceptions, everyone who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes, which doesn't make any sense. If you believe a government is necessary, and that the way a government should be run should be determined democratically, and that is how your government is run, you should be delighted you are getting exactly the kind of government you want, no matter how the vote goes.

After all, as H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." But they always complain when they get it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:33 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

It's a neat quote. I sort of wonder, though, why does he say "it will never be happy" and not "we will never be happy?" Is he not part of the human race? Maybe he should have said he has little belief in human progress because 'too many people will never be happy'. It seems like that would make it a more interesting and thought-provoking quote, at least to me.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:22 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

It's true. Almost every human being believes they must have a government to run their life, or, if not their own life exactly, at least everyone else's life. They all disagree on exactly what a government should be and do, but they all agree that the way to determine that is by consensus. "A government should represent the people," by which they mean, everyone should have a vote about what the government is and does.

yes

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes

as a liberal person since - forever - but value a Democratic Republic - refuse to vote for two loser not valuing what i values (and since there is no 3/4th party to vote for assuming thier candidate was not shit like the machine Demcon/Republicrat (speak in 1990's ear here/trump is outside of this - sadly - so i will vote for demntia joe over dictator rump -----ya i know lesser of evis.

i affirm a viable 3 -4 and even 5th party. for me to vote for, assuming their candidate is not an idiot like the 2 we have today.

anyway like Ron Paul - voted for him in 88, but his son is nit - no Libertarian (I'm not into inherited sin, so fine with the Father worthy of my vote and not the son)

I'm fucking SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! per polical indentification, for the last 30 yrs - ya seriously 30 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a "lib" per civil liberties, but no so per econimicaly.

Greens are cool per international law, but not so per national law (I affirm the UN and my Cosntitution - both, but if forced in in a war bet, i choose the latter) grteen do not.

Libertarians are cool per personal libertry - so same as me, but they suck per corporations - "its ok for corps to fuck you over, regulations agaisn monopies are bad" ----this pisses me off, because per the vision of liberty/US constitution Liberarians and myself are 100 percent -------until they play the "free market" card, then they fucking suck!

as for Dems, they lost me with the "new dems" - early 90's turned their backs on the blue collar.

as for Reichbugs, that party never valued what i do.

either the ultra rich 1-=percenters decade prior or the religious facsits today. fuck them both, i was never religious nor rich nor will ever be.

FK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why cant the Liberarians removes their Economic bullshit of "freee monopoly" and the Greens with their "ignore the Constitution" - and meat in the middle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and make a VIABLE 3 partly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ignore my tears - 20 yrs too late, my bad so sad.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:33 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]
It's a neat quote. I sort of wonder, though, why does he say "it will never be happy" and not "we will never be happy?" Is he not part of the human race? Maybe he should have said he has little belief in human progress because 'too many people will never be happy'. It seems like that would make it a more interesting and thought-provoking quote, at least to me.

In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.

No doubt, he was referring to the 99% of humanity he described:

So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for religion, and so long as they thirst for religion, it will remain a weapon over them. I see no way out. If you blow up one specific faith, they will embrace another. [Letter to Upton Sinclair, 14 Oct (17), The New Mencken Letters [1977]]

Mencken mentioned religion which is only one of the many superstitions that dominate the beliefs of most people. He might just as well have included all the social and political ideologies that have largely taken over the minds of the ignorant and gullible. I personally think his 99% estimate was low.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:07 pm**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:22 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

It's true. Almost every human being believes they must have a government to run their life, or, if not their own life exactly, at least everyone else's life. They all disagree on exactly what a government should be and do, but they all agree that the way to determine that is by consensus. "A government should represent the people," by which they mean, everyone should have a vote about what the government is and does.
yes

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes
as a liberal person since - forever - but value a Democratic Republic - refuse to vote for two loser not valuing what i values (and since there is no 3/4th party to vote for assuming thier candidate was not shit like the machine Demcon/Republicrat (speak in 1990's ear here/trump is outside of this - sadly - so i will vote for demntia joe over dictator rump -----ya i know lesser of evis.

i affirm a viable 3 -4 and even 5th party. for me to vote for, assuming their candidate is not an idiot like the 2 we have today.

anyway like Ron Paul - voted for him in 88, but his son is nit - no Libertarian (I'm not into inherited sin, so fine with the Father worthy of my vote and not the son)

I'm fucking SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! per polical indentification, for the last 30 yrs - ya seriously 30 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a "lib" per civil liberties, but no so per econimicaly.

Greens are cool per international law, but not so per national law (I affirm the UN and my Cosntitution - both, but if forced in in a war bet, i choose the latter) grteen do not.

Libertarians are cool per personal libertry - so same as me, but they suck per corporations - "its ok for corps to fuck you over, regulations agaisn monopies are bad" ----this pisses me off, because per the vision of liberty/US constitution Liberarians and myself are 100 percent -------until they play the "free market" card, then they fucking suck!

as for Dems, they lost me with the "new dems" - early 90's turned their backs on the blue collar.

as for Reichbugs, that party never valued what i do.

either the ultra rich 1-=percenters decade prior or the religious facsits today. fuck them both, i was never religious nor rich nor will ever be.

FK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why cant the Liberarians removes their Economic bullshit of "freee monopoly" and the Greens with their "ignore the Constitution" - and meat in the middle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and make a VIABLE 3 partly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ignore my tears - 20 yrs too late, my bad so sad.

That's the whole point. If you believe the way things should be run is to submit your own life and future to the vote of the majority, which you must believe if you vote, you deserve what you get.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:33 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]
It's a neat quote. I sort of wonder, though, why does he say "it will never be happy" and not "we will never be happy?" Is he not part of the human race? Maybe he should have said he has little belief in human progress because 'too many people will never be happy'. It seems like that would make it a more interesting and thought-provoking quote, at least to me.
In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.

I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:42 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

An interesting contrast to that quote might be from George Bernard Shaw.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:45 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:33 am

It's a neat quote. I sort of wonder, though, why does he say "it will never be happy" and not "we will never be happy?" Is he not part of the human race? Maybe he should have said he has little belief in human progress because 'too many people will never be happy'. It seems like that would make it a more interesting and thought-provoking quote, at least to me.
In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.
I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?

Mencken is dead, but everything I've read and what I know about his life, I doubt he thought of himself as a member of anything. But we can't ask him. I can only speak for myself and I am not a member of anything. It is almost impossible for most people today who have been so thorougly brainwashed with the idea that everyone must be identified with some collection of group of some kind, an ethnicity, an ideology, a religion, a nationality, or a member of some party, or group, or movement, they just can't imagine that anyone can think of himself and all others as individual human beings and nothing but individual human beings. You are what you are and what you are is whatever you have chosen to make of yourself, no matter who your ancestors were, where you were born, or what group or party you associate yourself or identify yourself with.

The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. [H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun 12 February 1923.]

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:15 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:45 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm
In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.
I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?
I can only speak for myself and I am not a member of anything.

You aren't a member of the human race? What species are you then?

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:19 am**

RCSaunders wrote:
Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes and with some rare exceptions everyone
who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes which doesnt make any sense

Human beings in general have a hard time accepting the fact that other human beings think differently to them
And an even harder time accepting that those other human beings may even be right - at least some of the time

Everyone thinks that they are right but this cannot be true as no one has a monopoly on wisdom
This is why it is important and actually necessary to listen to as many different views as possible

But many human beings have a somewhat difficult time with this simple concept and some refuse to accept it at all
Were we less tribalistic then we might make more progress but giving up tribalism is hard if not impossible for many

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:26 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm
Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes, and with some rare exceptions, everyone who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes, which doesn't make any sense.

It, indeed, doesn’t make any sense—unless everyone voted differently than everyone else. Voters are usually content with other voters who vote the same way.

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:14 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:42 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm "I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

An interesting contrast to that quote might be from George Bernard Shaw.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Ironically, Shaw was right. All real progress does depend on those who adapt the world to the requirements of human beings, like making buildings, inventing machines, and discovering medicine which the world does not provide, instead of surrendering to the irrational forces of nature, like the climate, life crushing physical labor, and diseases that would kill him. Shaw believed in Rousseau's and Nietzsche''s naturalism, e.g. “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of” God, “the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man,” who “wants nothing as nature made it, not even man; for him, man must be trained like a school horse” which regarded "civilization," and, "intellectualism," anti-natural. As Shaw expressed:

"The unconscious self is the real genius. Your breathing goes wrong the moment your conscious self meddles with it."

and

"Except during the nine months before he draws his first breath, no man manages his affairs as well as a tree does."

and

"Civilization is a disease produced by the practice of building societies with rotten material."

It was the whole point of his play, Man and Superman.

Shaw was a marvelously contradictory genius, a socialist who made the points:

"He who confuses political liberty with freedom and political equality with similarity has never thought for five minutes about either."

and

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

I think Shaw's estimate of mankind came to the same conclusion as Mencken, but from an almost opposite reasoning. Thanks for bringing that up.

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:01 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:33 am

It's a neat quote. I sort of wonder, though, why does he say "it will never be happy" and not "we will never be happy?" Is he not part of the human race? Maybe he should have said he has little belief in human progress because 'too many people will never be happy'. It seems like that would make it a more interesting and thought-provoking quote, at least to me.
In Mencken's day, most people did not think in those collectivist terms. Thinking of humanity as some kind of, "we," which has some objective or purpose of its own was unknown until forced on the public consciousness by government education and academic Marxist propaganda. For Mencken (and me as well) the human race is just a collective term for all the individual human beings in the world. He might have said, "most human beings," but he was a journalist, not a philosopher, and people were still able to read and enjoy subtleties in his day.
I don't think it has much to do with "collectivism" only with grouping and categories. Isn't he a member of the human race? Or is he some alien species from another planet?

Being a kind of thing and being a, "member," of some group or class are not the same thing. The word, "member," is ambiguous and subject to equivocation.

The primary meaning of member is something that is a part of a whole, such as an organ of the body, or someone who belongs to a group or organization. A less common meaning is something that has a specific attribute or characteristic common to all referrents of a class or category of existents.

When someone says, "you are a member of the human race," to mean one of those organisms defined as human, it is the second less common meaning of member that is (or should be) meant. As soon as someone admits, of course, "I'm a member of the human race," in that sense, some collectivist will immediately equivocate the meaning to the more common "member of some whole called humanity or mankind."

Of course every individual human being is a "member of the human race," but only in the sense that every individual is a human being. It is not true that every individual human being is a member of the human race in the sense they are some element in some collective thing called humanity.

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:50 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:19 am
RCSaunders wrote:
Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes and with some rare exceptions everyone
who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes which doesnt make any sense
Human beings in general have a hard time accepting the fact that other human beings think differently to them
And an even harder time accepting that those other human beings may even be right - at least some of the time

Everyone thinks that they are right but this cannot be true as no one has a monopoly on wisdom
This is why it is important and actually necessary to listen to as many different views as possible

But many human beings have a somewhat difficult time with this simple concept and some refuse to accept it at all
Were we less tribalistic then we might make more progress but giving up tribalism is hard if not impossible for many

Just because most people are "tribalistic," (and I agree they are), does not mean you or I have to be. The first step in overcoming tribalism is to stop thinking of everything in terms of, "we."

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:57 pm**

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:14 pm
Everyone who truly believes in democracy votes, and with some rare exceptions, everyone who votes is always unhappy with the way everyone else votes, which doesn't make any sense.
It, indeed, doesn’t make any sense—unless everyone voted differently than everyone else. Voters are usually content with other voters who vote the same way.

Unless the politics are different wherever you are, in all the politics I bother to observe, (it is sometimes entertaining, when not disgustingly absurd), no voting citizen is ever happy with their present government. But they ought to be happy if they really believe whatever government gets voted in is the right one, shouldn't they?

Philosophy Now Forum

Democracy

Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy