Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago#122,745
I’m not very ideological in general when it comes to politics or religion or anything, but there’s this one phrase in Latin:
"Interior intimo meo et superior summo meo."
Basically it means, "You [God] are closer to me than I am to myself yet you are superior to my highest self." I feel like in our culture we’re supposed to value individual liberty and put ourselves at the center of the universe, and whether something is "good" or "bad" is determined by whether it selfishly serves us. People don’t want to take accountability for anything. But there is a part of me that’s attracted to the idea of some divine purpose. It’s almost sort of like you’re not supposed to say that. But there’s something about that phrase, the idea of something being closer to you than you are to yourself yet higher than your highest self that seems kinda inspiring in a sort of absolute blind conviction sort of way. Is there a word for that? I feel like society is missing something like that.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#1,339,240
Like I’m not saying that "thing" has to be religion. But why in society is the idea of a divine purpose of humanity taboo? In communist societies that were fundamentally atheist, there was still a concept of divine purpose towards the end of a collective utopia for humanity. I’m not saying it has to be for that either. I’m just saying, isn’t it sort of nihilistic to only live for yourself and not to have some absolute conviction that’s not individualistic?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,241
Because, all of us are going to die. You’re going to die, that’s just how it is. But if you die after you’ve lived for yourself, once you die, there is no self any longer if you are an atheist. So an atheistic individualistic death is a meaningless pointless death. If you’re going to die, wouldn’t it be better if your death actually meant something for the progress of humanity towards SOMETHING?
Right, but I'm asking for you to justify your appeal. Why would it be better if your death contributed towards the progress of humanity towards some arbitrary goal?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,258
@previous (D)
There’s a way of thinking about this that connects rational selfishness to collective wellbeing. You might imagine two worlds, one world where people care about the wellbeing of each other, and another where people care about the wellbeing of themselves. In a world where everyone cares about themselves, people might ask themselves, "Why would I care what’s best for others if I can do what’s best for myself instead?" But in that world, you are one person, and the world is billions of people. What others can do for you will always be greater than what you can do for yourself. So there is a selfish reason why living in a world where everyone cares about everyone else would be better for you as an individual.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 54 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,261
Also "death" isn’t referring to literally dying for something as a martyr. It’s referring more to, when you’re dying and you look back on your life, and you know what you did and what it was for, if it was for other people, looking forward after your death, your actions in life will still mean something for someone. But if you acted only in your self interest, people might remember you, but they won’t love you.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,339,266
I think we’re thinking of two different concepts. I’m not sure if you’re asking me what I think the ultimate goal for humanity should be or if you’re asking me why I think the approach of caring about the wellbeing of society would be a more effective means of achieving that goal. Just asking me to define what "better" means doesn’t mean anything to me.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,339,269
Asking what "better" means is a meaningless question because all possible goals are subjective, but we must subjectively choose an objective in order to get anything done. Which objective we subjectively choose is determined by what we want, and what we want is determined by what we value, and what we value is subjective. Although, it is a fact of human biology that the existence of the human species is only possible if a male and a female come together to procreate. So the existence of our species fundamentally is impossible to maintain purely through individual effort. So it is obviously necessary due to the biological reality of our existence that our existence as individuals is only possible due to our cooperation as a collective. So the collective benefit of society must supersede the individual. Anything else is just denial. Even in capitalism, billionaires aren’t billionaires because of individual effort. Billionaires have thousands of employees working for them. They couldn’t have built their own mansions with their own hands.
Anonymous A (OP) sextuple-posted this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,339,274
The idea of "individualism” doesn’t align well with capitalism the way everyone thinks it does. If you work at a job for your boss, that means you don’t work for yourself and if you don’t work for yourself that means you don’t work for yourself. Most people work for someone else. Now some people own their own business, this is true. But there is a limit to how successful anyone can become by working for themself. When a business grows, people hire employees that work for them, and there are more employees than business owners. A business owner isn’t successful because "they work for themselves" they’re successful because more people do more work for them then they do for themselves. The real value of the ideology that most people have isn’t that it’s true, it’s fundamentally false that we are our own individuals paving our own way through the world with no help from anyone and no collective effort, the value of the ideology is purely that we only work harder because we’re convinced we’re working for ourselves and all of our success is due to own own efforts even though neither is actually true.
I'm asking you to be more clear in your concepts. You say that contribution to a group effort is more desirable than self-contribution because it's "better", but you don't give any reason why it's better or even what "better" is.
> Which objective we subjectively choose is determined by what we want, and what we want is determined by what we value, and what we value is subjective.
It seems counter-intuitive, in this case, to suggest that objectives can be ranked in order of "excellence of quality". If what better means is meaningless, then so is the declaration of better-ness for the objective you're championing.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,339,319
@1,339,313 (D)
Well if you want to get that technical, you could start making arguments like the Holocaust wasn’t bad because "bad" isn’t objective and maybe some people want to die.
I think that this is an ad hominem attack on my character, I am not a genocide apologist.
I can say the holocaust was bad. "Bad" means that it involved the deliberate infliction of suffering, which in this context refers to a state of physical and emotional distress which negatively affected the well-being of the victims of the Nazi atrocities and a disregard for their moral worth, and breached the principles of deontological ethics and virtue ethics, and additionally is in breach of any rights-based arguments you could come up with.
So no, I couldn't start making arguments like the holocaust wasn't bad, although you've already identified that with your logic, you could.