Of course expectations is not the same as IQ, my point was that ambition is not necessarily good because ill-judged ambition leads to disappointment, whereas contentment does not. Society gives people false hopes by telling them to have unrealistic aims and to 'make something of themselves', where that something is defined by someone else. It can be demonstrated that the majority of people in the UK were better when they were not fed drivel about achieving something, and were instead encouraged to be content.Quote:
The problem is that gut instinct evolved for a reason so they are definately not pointless, and there is no point trying to find a 'rational way to defend it'. In fact the concept of defending gut feelings or labeling them as unjustifiable doesn't even make sense, as biological urges exist completely independently of merely moral interpretations.Quote:
If moral judgement evolved for a reason, then moral judgements that are contrary to the self interest of an organism are inherently self-destructive and life-negating. In a state of nature people and communities carrying such ideas would die out, which is why universalistic sentiments are not produced by 'primitive' tribes, but by decadent societies such as the later Roman Empire or the modern West where such pressures have been removed.
Its the same with reasoning, general intelligence (G) evolved to enable our ancestors to cope with new problems, so why should anything be justified by reason? Judgements based primarily upon gut instincts have been demonstrated to produce better results in a value-neutral, Darwinian sense than judgements based upon abstract reasoning.
"There is more wisdom in our bodies than in all our philosophy." - Nietzsche
---------- Post added at 06:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------
"Nihilism sanctions the spreading of decadence. Decadence, which is a normal part of life, becomes dangerous at the moment that it attacks healthy parts of the body politic or of culture. Decadence, says Nietzsche, is heralded by the decline and devaluation of instincts. The decadent character has allowed rationalism to govern the instincts. In the great reversal of commonly accepted wisdom and most certainly the wisdom of his time, Nietzsche said that it was ultimately instinct which should drive rationalism and not rationalism instinct. What decadence proclaims as the moralisation of man is in fact the domestication of man and the weakening of the spirit. To replace real life, the decadent seeks artificial stimulation. In a decadent society, the passions are lived vicariously, adventure and horror is vicarious, the tone of reality is a quest for the safest solution. The superior values decline before the irresistible advance of rationalism, which is the tool of the weak to destroy the strong. For Nietzsche, rationalism is not neutral. It is a weapon of destruction." - Michael Walker on Freidrich Nietzsche
---------- Post added at 06:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 AM ----------
The Despisers of the Body
"To the despisers of the body will I speak my word. I wish them neither to learn afresh, nor teach anew, but only to bid farewell to their own bodies,--and thus be dumb.
"Body am I, and soul"--so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?
But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."
The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.
An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"--a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.
"Ego," sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing--in which thou art unwilling to believe--is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not "ego," but doeth it.
What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.
Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.
Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego's ruler.
Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage--it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.
There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?
Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."
The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto--and for that very purpose it IS MEANT to think.
The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice--and for that very purpose it IS MEANT to think.
To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?
The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.
Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.
No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:--create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.
But it is now too late to do so:--so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.
To succumb--so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.
And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.
I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! Ye are no bridges for me to the Superman!--
Thus spake Zarathustra.
There is nothing good about companies staying native to begin with. Forcing companies to stay native would severely reduce their ability to adapt to changes in markets. The only way in which such a thing would make a shred of sense is to ban exports and imports altogether however that would not be good for consumers or the companies (and can only be justified by giving objective value to the pieces of paper which define what a nation's border is and assuming that everyone outside it is your enemy or something of the sort). If it was so easy to set up a minimum wage there would not be so much debate and controversy about that all the time. Even if to you things are "stupid consumer goods" that is by no means the perspective the vast majority of people would take on it. People want more than food and water and that is not unreasonable.
Being contempt is not good either. If we are bringing Neitzche into this we might as well argue that promoting being contempt is basically the same as promoting mass mediocrity as a good thing. What you are suggesting is that people should not have expectations of themselves and each other. That sounds like a horrible, stale society.
Among the many things Neitzche wrote about (interestingly many of which would be contradictory with each other), at least for me the most remarkable one is the one of the superhuman. He respected Jesus because of what he accomplished for instance however shunned the Christians for so blindly following what he said. In this line, he respected people who asserted their individuality to the utmost extreme, who lived their live the way utmost extreme, the superhuman. Nietzche was against the dispising of the body and its instincs however he was also against ideas which limited us as individuals, he shunned the mediocre (he had trouble with EVERYTHING but whatever lol). Nietsche despised things which made us fall into mediocrity and stopped us from asserting our individuality, falling into the norm, not having your own ideas, even being contempt (or as I think I recall him calling it, happiness). I have only read two his books and was about to start the Zarathrusta however that was my take on what he meant. (not that he meant for people who read his books to just take it as truth or to blindly followed what he wrote). In the end I would argue Nietzche was all for ideas and instincts which lead us to greatness (or what we as individuals saw as greatness) and against ideas and instincts that made us mediocre.
That Homo sapiens is tribal is not a statement of 'ought' it is a statement of fact. The only way you can dismiss a national border is by saying it should be somewhere else. And yes, ougroup means competitor because the function of social behaviour and cooperation is to compete as a group against all outsiders.
And what people want is not neccessarily good for them. People's urges evolved to satisfy their needs back in the Paleolithic, in a modern environment these instincts can be harmful, for example leading to obesity.
And the majority of people can only ever be mediocre, its only the highest specimens who are natural potential to rise above it, if they don't waste their abilities through decadence. And how on earth does capitalism lead to greatness instead of mediocrity? I live in a consumerist society and I don't see much greatness around here, rather I see sheeple.
As for economics, quoth Steve Sailor.
"You've probably heard the story about the physicist, chemist, and economist who are shipwrecked on a desert island. Starving, they find a case of canned pork and beans on the beach. But they have no can opener. So they hold a symposium on how to open the cans. The physicist goes first:
"I've devised a physical solution. We find a pointed rock and propel it at the lid of the can at, say, 25 meters per second—"
The chemist breaks in:
"No, I have a chemical solution: we heat the molecules of the contents to over 100 degrees Centigrade until the pressure builds to—"
The economist, condescension dripping from his voice, interrupts:
"Gentlemen, gentlemen, I have a much more elegant solution. Assume we have a can opener..."
(Incidentally, Nietzsche did not blame Christianity on Jesus Christ, but on St Paul. The article Courage Style Aristocracy by Michael Walker is a very good introduction to Nietzsche for beginners trying to understand his thought. http://thescorp.multics.org/22nietzsche.html )
You have to put the tribal thing into context. Do we live in tribes nowadays? I am reasonably sure I do not live in one at all (heck, my family and childhood friends are back home 4000 miles from here and even back home I have nothing to do with the vast majority of people in the country from either a racial or cultural point of view). I won't question we are social creatures however we have moved up from tribes to cities, groups of cities and whatnot.... Nowadays in pretty much any mid size city you would already find people from all cultures and races. If society has already reached a point where you would find people of all cultures and races why would you even need a border? its in the way, a hastle, it serves no purpose.
I was not talking about capitalism leading to greatness ( I do not believe an economic system has in itself the capacity lead to greatness nor do I believe capitalism and socialism to be intrinsically good or evil- I do despise communism though). I do believe we should all have as much liberty to do with our lives what we want and aspire to whatever we want and move to wherever we want. And yeah, the majority will invariably be mediocre, thats the definition. But that does not mean we should not work towards raising the bar for mediocre (mediocre of today is moronic of tomorrow). Happiness (or being contempt, whichever you prefer) is not something that is given by a system (depending on the individual a system can or cannot help though), it is something entirely personal.
I did not quite say Neitzche blamed christianity on jesus though, I was merely making the point that he respected the man for doing what he did and not the followers or the traditional christian values. It does not even have to be jesus, it could be anyone who simply follows without any thinking of his own.
Yes, there is a lot of psychological and biological evidence to support Social Identity Theory, so yes, humans do innately live in tribes today because of biological constraints.
For example people are more inclined to be altruistic in homogenous societies. and to be more enthusiastic about collectivist policies aimed at helping the poor when living in homogenous communities, because shared ethnicity is extended kinship at the genetic level. Where a population is more closely related by genes and shared values (values that affect behaviours are therefore evolutionary strategies), humans have more at stake in co-operation with their neighbours.
"One type of evolutionary approach to anti-Semitism considers the possibility that humans have mechanisms that cause them to favor relatives or others who share genes. There is little doubt that kin recognition mechanisms exist among animals (see Rushton 1989), and some evolutionists (e.g., Dunbar 1987; Shaw & Wong 1989; van der Dennen 1987; Vine 1987) have proposed genetic mechanisms based on kin recognition as an explanation for xenophobia, although others have proposed that the genetic mechanism may well depend on learning during development (e.g., Alexander 1979, 126–128). Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) (Rushton 1989) extends beyond kin recognition by proposing mechanisms (possibly based on kin recognition mechanisms) that assess phenotypic similarity as a marker for genetic similarity. These proposed mechanisms would then promote positive attitudes and a lower threshold for altruism for similar others. There is indeed considerable evidence, summarized in Rushton (1989) and Segal (1993), that phenotypic similarity is an important factor in human assortment, helping behavior, and liking others, although whether GST can account for these phenomena remains controversial (see commentary in Rushton 1989)."
"The empirical results of social identity research are highly compatible with an evolutionary basis for group behavior. Current evidence indicates that the minimal group findings can be generalized across subjects of different ages, nationalities, social classes, and a wide range of dependent variables (Bourhis 1994), and anthropological evidence indicates the universality of the tendency to view one’s own group as superior (Vine 1987). Moreover, social identity processes occur very early in life, prior to explicit knowledge about the outgroup. An evolutionary interpretation of these findings is also supported by results indicating that social identity processes occur among advanced animal species, such as chimpanzees. Van der Dennen (1991, 237) proposes, on the basis of his review of the literature on human and animal conflict, that advanced species have “extra-strong group delimitations” based on emotional mechanisms. I would agree and suggest that one emotional mechanism is in fact the self-esteem mechanism proposed by social identity theorists. Other emotional mechanisms that may be involved are the social conscientiousness/guilt mechanism discussed in PTSDA (Ch. 7) and the experience of psychological relief obtained by individuals who join highly collectivist, authoritarian groups (Galanter 1989a; see below). These latter mechanisms, although not considered by social identity theorists, would result in strong positive feelings associated with group membership, and feelings of guilt and distress at the prospect of defecting from the group.
The powerful emotional components of social identity processes are very difficult to explain except as an aspect of the evolved machinery of the human mind. I have noted that the emotional consequences of social identity processes are a theoretical primitive in the system. As Hogg and Abrams (1987, 73) note, this result cannot be explained in terms of purely cognitive processes, and a learning theory seems hopelessly ad hoc and gratuitous. The tendencies for humans to place themselves in social categories and for these categories to assume powerful emotional and evaluative overtones (involving guilt, empathy, self-esteem, relief at securing a group identity, and distress at losing it) are the best candidates for the biological underpinnings of participation in highly cohesive collectivist groups.
Finally, the fact that social identity processes and tendencies toward collectivism increase during times of resource competition and threat to the group (see Hogg & Abrams 1987; Triandis 1990, 1991) is highly compatible with supposing that these processes involve facultative mechanisms triggered by between-group conflict. As emphasized by evolutionists such as Alexander (1979) and Johnson (1995), external threat tends to reduce internal divisions and maximize perceptions of common interest among group members. Under conditions of external threat, human societies expand government and there is an increase in cooperative and even altruistic behavior. Such changes presumably reflect a species-wide facultative strategy of accepting higher levels of external authority and becoming more group-oriented under conditions of external threat.
I would have to say that the primary thing that fuels anti-Americanism is not only the perception of America's unfair tactics of not only subterfuge against established states (British Empire, the French Colonial Empire, etc.) but also its vast employment of no-holds-barred total war against other nations when it enters combat. From the Japanese Empire to the German Empore of the First Great War and the Second Great War, there has been massive destruction reigned from American guns, although by the fact that these are wars that were started in Asia, Africa, and Europe, and the only reason it seems that America ever gets involved in them is out of greed and two-timing reasons. All other nations were humiliated and made into puppets, and many still are today (European Union, the Empire of Japan, and so on), so it feels less like a free world circa pre-1900, and more like a world of totalitarianism that even authoritarians and totaliarinists would find to be harsh.
I live in America, but I find that my personal allegiance goes more and more to my British ancestors, and not to those who reigned them in. But then again, I'm open to accept that people will disagree; these are just my two-cents, an something I've been meaning to let off my chest for a while now.