Jump to content

What things make you think?


Diavolo
 Share

Recommended Posts



Have you ever loved so much that you are afraid to ask: when is this going to end? Why does it have to end? Is there anything I can do to put off the inevitable? Is every end really inevitable? There are moments when philosophy robs us and we cannot avoid it: the punishment against someone who follows the law; of an innocent, the death of a loved one, the reason behind the sacrifice we make in order to get what we want ...

What things make you think?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me there has always been a balance. For every good thing that happens I can expect and equally bad thing to take place. o in answer to your question, it is an accepted condition that even perfect love has a use by date.

As for Philosophy? Is philosophy only relevant to those who have the leisure to explore it? The people who live a safe and pampered life seem to have the time and leisure to sit back and ask any questions that come to mind. While those struggling to survive are too embittered and distracted by pain to bother? 🦊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does the balance come from? What forces operate it? It would not be necessary to conceive before an egemonic justice, which has the sovereignty to define the good from the bad in order to execute a balance? and who or what operates that justice?

 

As for the second thing that you comment, I consider that, with greater reason, those who suffer are the most empowered to do philosophy. I mean the nonconformists. Did you know that when a starfish finds a place with a lot of resources, and settles there, it begins to eat its brain? Well, it seems to me that the same thing happens to those who settle in the world satisfying themselves with what they think they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2021 at 12:25 PM, Diavolo said:

Where does the balance come from? What forces operate it? It would not be necessary to conceive before an egemonic justice, which has the sovereignty to define the good from the bad in order to execute a balance? and who or what operates that justice?

 

As for the second thing that you comment, I consider that, with greater reason, those who suffer are the most empowered to do philosophy. I mean the nonconformists. Did you know that when a starfish finds a place with a lot of resources, and settles there, it begins to eat its brain? Well, it seems to me that the same thing happens to those who settle in the world satisfying themselves with what they think they know.

An experiment with mice found that given unlimited food and habitat the mice reached a point at which they stopped breeding and over time died off.

4B926431-7ECF-4832-90A7-F28033D79B8F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 10:15 PM, Diavolo said:

Unlimited food, but reduced habitat. To be honest, I dare not draw conclusions knowing that you can better illustrate the point

In HG Wells book 'The Time Machine' it describes a future place where society had been divided into two groups. The Eloi and the Morlocks.

The Eloi were an effeminate  group. Not suited to hard work and living a pampered and privileged life. While the Morlocks were a brutal physical group able to do the labour that kept the Eloi society fed and sheltered. These two in many ways reflected the two societies that were evidenced at the time Wells wrote the book. The working class which did so out of sight. In some cases they worked in the cellar or basement of shops. Perhaps Wells was describing what could happen if things kept developing as they had been. The gap between the two becoming too vast for them work work together.

In the experiment with them ice the two groups could also reflect the Eloli and Morlocks. The ones at the top of the structure spent all their time grooming while the ones at the bottom became aggressive. Humanity seems to have a tendency to revert to these two base mindsets. I am reminded at this point of the book The Lord of the Flies. The same division was created between the two groups of boys.

Any thoughts or considerations?  🦊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.

It would be more of a sociological or historical endeavor to determine how the base of any hierarchy decides to fight to achieve better conditions of life. But let's analyze briefly both examples you put on the table:

The mise are subjugated to an external operating force that conditions their environment in such a way the animals can not oppose resistance. The experiment was designed to give them no chance to overcome the trial. Life is not always that way. Let's get radical. The experiment doesn't proportionate them enough time to evolve, to develop a complex language, to build systems of belief, and anything that can be perceived as a sign of civilization. Let's imagine the experiment proceeds during centuries in such a way that mise develops consciousness, enough to realize that among them are no Eloi; enough to comprehend that the Eloi are the humans controlling their environment; their fates. Crazy, huh? Well. Anything that lives enough time may be a candidate, under fascinating, profound, or unexpected phenomena (things that make think) to develop intelligence. Why not mise\morlocks?

With some exposure to the right stimuli, Morlocks would be able to question the Status Quo and, maybe, negotiate. Just a hypothesis.

In my country, there is an aphorism that says: "no hay mal que dure un siglo ni pendejo que lo aguante". That means: No evil can last a hundred years and there is no one dumbass enough to tolerate it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.