Wo/man cannot evolve beyond his/her character

Everyone ruling the world isn't the same as individualism.

It seems more like too little freedom leads to self-destruction(hence the Dark Ages). Would you say that the Renaissance when individualism and freedom began to emerge was better or worse than the Dark Ages when conformist slave mentality prospered? Also, in order for the species to survive, we have to advocate individualist thinking in order to keep the population low. You advocate Darkage slavish non-sense, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

What does this have to do with what you were saying about christian rule and meekness being ideal? If there is no one to challenge the rulers, there is no way to know whether they're doing their jobs right. You must know this? You asked how do you regulate behavior without religion...There's no reason to regulate human beavior. Different types of people are needed in order for society to function right. By regulating behavior, you halt progression. Anyway, yes, I would be willing to die for my freedom if I felt it was threatened. However, right now I do pretty much whatever I want, and no one ever tries to stop me, so I'd say I'm pretty free.

Again, I never said unlimited freedom, individualism isn't unlimited freedom.

Right, keep the beast locked up...that'll fix his problems. Afterall, human beings are just tools to be used by society, this is what you're saying, correct? I thought the purpose of society was for everyone to live freely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Individualism is a myth. No one is an individual, everyone has a family, or a tribe, or a country, or a religion, or a culture, or a community, or a combination of things.

What are you talking about? There were kings and queens during the Renaissance. There was slavery too. Individuality was oppressed during this time, you need to read the history. Yes religion was responsible for some of the worst situations in human history, but without religion humans would have no concept of good and evil.

It's essential that humanity know right from wrong, unless you advocate a scientific form of ethics, which I do advocate, such as utilitarianism or game theory, well religion is how most people interpret the world. The majority of the people on this planet need religion to survive even if you personally do not.

That makes no sense. How does individualist thinking keep the populatioin low? That's not what will happen, because there is no such thing as an individual. Also you are talking about religious people, sure people who want to live the isolated nomad life, will not have families and sure if God does not tell them to they might be less likely to be family oriented, and yes this might keep the population lower, but these people still join gangs, they still form psuedo families.

DO you want the masses, THESE masses, to rule? You have a point that religion protects the rulers, but it also protects the intellectual classes like us, people who want to think about stuff, and be scholars, we can only function in a society of thinkers. With no religion there is nothing to prevent society from being complete anarchy. If you have not noticed, it's not in your or my best interest to have a society without order, and while you may not disagree with the current order, if you do not offer an alternative besides anarchy, posing as individuality, you won't get far.

The USA was never truly individualist, this country was founded by religious people. Religion has it's problems, but humanity is better with religion than without it. I don't think humanity needs more freedom, and when it comes to individuality, we have to learn to accept our species first before we can even pretend to know what individuality is.

The reason a society exists at all is to regulate behavior. How can you say there is no reason to regulate behavior? Are we supposed to let murderers and rapists behave however they want? If there were no laws don't you see how quickly everyone would be at war with everyone else?

You also halt destruction if you regulate destructive behavior. I'm not saying we should regulate creativity, or innovation.

You don't do whatever you want. There are laws that you must follow, and if you break them, either someone will shoot you, or you'll be put in a cage.

What are your limits? I'm a supporter of libertarianism, I think people should be as free as they can responsibly handle. This means you should have the freedom to think whatever you want and say whatever you want, but you should not have the freedom to harm others. Freedom has it's limits even if you are libertarian.

Human beings exist to protect society, which protects the existance of human beings and the species itself. So yes, sometimes society is more important. You think it would be good for society to open the gates to all the prisons and release the prisoners so they can start raping, killing, and robbing people? Sure some prisoners might have learned and won't do this, but the majority of prisoners will get out and do it again, and I see no reason why we should have to deal with that.

Do you know what would happen if we stopped having laws and stopped regulating behavior? We'd regulate violently. Instead of prisoners being locked in jails and in cages, or restrained, it would be that they'd commit a crime and a lynch mob would form, and literally hang them. This is what happened during the dark ages and during the Renaissance. I don't know how you could forget that people were being hanged, tortured, enslaved, yeah people had laws back then, but you want to go back to a time when there were no laws at all. Honestly if you go back to that time, then each group of individuals will make the law for themselves.

We need a government to make laws for us. I think most of us recognize this. We need government and government needs us, because without it, most humans would behave like criminals. We need a government to tame, restrain and control the beast that is human nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that's so, then why did some of humanity go to war to stop the other part of humanity? It obviously wasn't the "collective emotions" of everyone ...else we'd all be nazis right now!

But I think I get it, TT, ...for anything that ever happens, past, present or future, all you have to say is "It was the collective character of humanity at that time." ...and you feel your theory is vindicated. How nice. But how foolish, too. Sorta' like sayin' "The devil made them do it!", huh?

Yeah, sure. I mean, if you say it enough, like Hitler did, then you can make most people belief whatever you want. Just saying that bullshit, TT, is not the same as proving it or even showing evidence. In the first paragraph, I've already debunked your silly theory of "collective character of humanity". You have a theory with no facts, no supporting evidence, or anything else except your words ....ain't that sorta' like a religion?

By the way, I think I like your ideas/thoughts about society ...and how individuals are and must be part of society, with individuals subordinate to the whole. I agree with that ideal, instead of what most seem to feel ...that the individual is all-important - he ain't!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nazi's would not let us all be Nazi's, only true pure aryans could be the master race. I think you could see just by the fact that the majority of the world would have been completely excluded, that even if people were racist as hell they might still be against the nazi regime. The emotions, I call them collective because, humanity is a collective, and when we get mad, it gets expressed in destructive ways. I don't mean to say 100% of all humans feel the same thing, just when the important humans feel a certain way, everything changes.

Hatred is behind the holocaust. Not the devil, but an emotion.

Well alright, the numbers, when we have too many hateful aggressive humans, humanity self destructs. It's obvious, that as world hatred increases, world misery increases with it.

It's not my theory, the founders of this country had that in mind all along. I think thats just the natural order of things. I don't mean that humans should be slaves and have no individuality or freedom at all, I mean we have to regulate ourselves and create order.

It's like with ants, roaches, bees, we humans also require order. We are too advanced at this point to live like monkeys. This means we cannot go around doing whatever we want to each other, there must be rules. It starts with a code of ethics, and religion is just the best way to teach ethics to people. The code of ethics then becomes basis for laws. Laws become the basis for a society.

I like individuality enough that I don't want to decide how our species looks, or even how our species thinks, I like diversity, it's interesting. I think people should be able to dress how they want, say what they want, but the behavior must be limited so as not to harm anyone else. I believe it's our responsibility as humans, to limit our own destructiveness, so that we don't destroy our unborn children, or the future. You and I might disagree on politics, on issues of race, or how this might be done, but in the end the only thing that matters is species, family, community, society, planet, future, etc.

 

What about Nietzsche? Or hermits?

Yes, but the Renaissance was the starting point of individualism. That was the time when the west started to break free from the chains of religion. Remember the word started.

Good and evil are arbitrary, and in the end, personal ethics should not be applied to governments. A society can run perfectly fine as a system based on Mill's Utilitarian system of ethics.

I'm not positive what game theory is, but I advocate a utilitarian elitist structur of society.

Think....individualists are pre-occuppied with their own goals, and too busy to have children. Beseides that, individualist thinking leads to intellectualism, which leads to people thinking about their decisions more in depth. That probably amounts to people waiting until later in life to have children or adopting children, therefore less children. Why is it that most of the great scientists and philosophers never had any children?

What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate? It's very possible to be an individual within society.

Did you read the thread about atheism and population. Also, in the Bible I believe it says be fruitful, isn't this the opposite of what you were saying? Or are you talking about religion in general?

The masses are just as slavish as they were in the dark ages.

Most intelectuals are indiviualists. Well, most of the ones who've accomplished anything throughout history. That's where innovative thinking come from.

That's why society exists.

Again I never said a society without order.

What do you mean learn to accept our species?

Ok. I guess I shouldn't have behavior, I should've said thought.

Then we have no disagreement.

I do do whatever I want. That's part of my personal philosophy, I try not to let laws have effect on what I do. It's just that I don't want to go out and kill people or anything like that. I do break the law from time to time, but it never draws any attention to me, and I usually don't get in any trouble. I get into fights or smoke a blunt from time to time, and I've never been in trouble for either of those things in my life. Since I've started having personal ethics, I haven't been bothered by police or anyone else, besides the neighborhood crackheads every now and then.

Me too, mostly.

Yes, there is the problem of how much responsibility people can handle without killing each other, but that has nothing to do with individuals being individuals.

If society becomes more important than indivual freedom, then it has no purpose.

Again, nothing to do with what I said. You're being too extreme.

Yes, we need a governemnt, I never said any different. The purpose of the government is to protect its citizen while allowing as much freedom as possible, not to suppress individuality. That's what you were saying when you were talking about why religion is essential.

 

Always maintain control and order Mr. Nihilist hermit.

How do you figure? cite some sources. As far as I know, that was the time where money became religion, along with gunpowder and guns being the weapon of God replacing the sword. I don't see how exactly you can say that these were good replacements, sure there were great scientific advancements towards our continued self destruction.

Yeah. but JS Mill basically said that limiting harm was the basis for ethics ,thats what I said. But you cannot limit harm without the use of force. This means society has a role, and government has a role, to protect humans from each other.

So you advocate a Republic, thats sorta what we have now.

Let me guess, you are a nihilist, right? This site is for you http://anus.com/

How do you come to this conclusion?

How do you come to this conclusion? You are assuming selfish people will wait, or that people will be rational enough to adopt, but why? You need to make a case. If money is your best case, you want to replace religion with capitalism???? God is in the money?

Because they were stupid fools? Maybe if they did have children we'd have evolved. You are not making sense. You are advocating that we have less children, fair, but why would you advocate that the smartest among us have the least children while the dumbest among us have the most?

Do you pay taxes? If you do, you are not an individual anymore.

What is with your intense dislike of our domesticated population of humans? Would you rather we live in a jungle?

You also said these people rarely have children, so why exactly is it good to be smart in that case ?

You have to make your case better. The way you argue it, you make it cool to be dumb, and smart to be stupid.

Explain again, more clearly.

So what order should we have? since we agree that order is neccessary.

What behavior is unacceptable?

That's what you think. Everything you do, has an effect on everything and everyone else even if you don't get caught. If you break the law and it's not harming anyone, then no one will care, but if you harm people even if it's legal, it will get you in trouble.

What if you get into a fight with the wrong person?

Yes but how do you have personal ethics with no religion? Do you use science? Do you follow JS Mill?

I don't care who you are or become as long as you aren't destroying my world.

Society protects your freedom/right to life and happiness.

Yes but how much freedom should be allowed before we have to admit we have too much? I think, based on what I see, we have a bit too much. We should have DIFFERENT, SAFE freedoms. Unlimited freedom to do whatever harmless things you want to do, and if two adults want to harm each other and agree to do it, they can do that. I'm just saying someone has to protect the women and children.

Religion is essential. Unless you want to use science to teach personal responsibility.

 

I've never argued that the government has a role in governing humans, but religions don't. Also, governments have no right to limit individualism. What you're saying is just stupid. You're trying to suggest that individualism means no government, and that's not true.

Yes, I like what we have now. There's room for improvement, but I wouldn't spend any time worried about it, because I can be perfectly happy in the current system.

No, I'm not a nihilist. I just realise that everyone doesn't have the same values as me, and that a government should be based on ethics that we can all agree on. The closest thing to that that I can think of is utilitarianism. Thanks for the link though, I'll look at it tomorro.

Individuals make their own decisions. That means that when someone tells them something, they don't instantly except it, but rather they look into it, and decide for themselves what to believe. Can you see how this leads to intelectualism?

What are you talking about god is money? What's that have to do with what I said. Generally, when someone has kids, that's the end, or at least postponing of his/her personal goals. That means that not having children right away is in the best interest of an individualist.

I don't advocate it. As I said, I advocate individualism. If it was possible, the perfect world would consist of only the most brilliant, most physically fit, most skillful, and most creative people would be allowed breeding rights. However this isn't possible, so there is no purpose to discussing it.

No, I don't pay taxes. Your argument doesn't make any sense anyway, it's possible to be an individual aswell as a part of society. When I use the word individualist, I'm not talking about a sociopathic outcast of society, I'm talking about someone who is non-conformist.

AGAIN...Individualism doesn't have anything to do with anarchy. You're being too extreme.

Why isn't it? Having children is the only thing worth living for?

First, it pretty much is cool to be dumb. Also, you're the one making it smart to be stupid. You're saying that the key to the survival of the species depends on religion making people docile, but both of those things are stupid. The flaws of religion are obvious, I'm not going out of my way to explain them. If people never think for themselves, there isn't any point to life. You live for society, as a slave, that's your purpose beyond individualism.

What do you mean by what order should we have? I don't understand what you asking me.

Murder, Rape, stealing from the government, and undisciplined behavior. Of course there is more, but these things a untolerable, and I'm not going to list everything that's unacceptable. Basically, anything that causes someone else's freedom to be disrupted is unnacceptable.

Then I'll end up like my cousin.

No, I use the only thing that's relevant in personal ethics, my own emotions, and my own values.

That was my point, when society itself becomes more important than your freedom/right it has no purposes.

How's that?

Why should we have different freedoms? And what do you mean by that? Do you mean different people should have different freedoms, or different from what we have now? Either way, why?

That's why there's law enforcement. By the way, we don't have that much freedom now, so I can't understand how you would want that, and also say that we ave too much freedom.

Are you suggesting that nothing exists outside of science and religion that can teach personal responsibility? What about literature or philosophy?

 

You know, Time Traveller - when you figure that out, you'll be in possession of a key which will open many doors.