Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's the same coin, different side isn't it? The immorality of racism-collectivism cuts both ways, and one should dismiss instantly any notion of guilt and personal responsibility for your entire race - on you, individually - that gets laid down by the Left. People, I might add, who have an implicit fear/hatred for other races which their morality cannot cope with. Psychologically for them it seems, they need to 'share the pain' and to feel substantiated with your guilt.

"I have personally been nothing but fair and individualistic in my interactions..."

Exactly. There is however, an apparent dilemma that arises- in my experience: What does one do when one conducts oneself this way uncompromisingly, but then meets individuals who, in fact, WANT to be treated according to a perceived racist-collectivist profile. iow, he or she takes pride in their 'group identity' (whatever this may be) so constantly rejects your individualistic assessment of them?

That happens a lot and I think the only recourse finally, is take them at their word. i.e. to withdraw your individualist approach, and have as little to do with them after. Or else one can sacrifice oneself to a losing cause. You owe nothing to anyone.

 

  A lot of people think that the individualist approach is dishonest, naive, or disrespectful. 

  

  I think most of those people want you to recognize that they have been through some trauma due to their position in society. Vietnamese and Koreans get a lot of shit in our culture, especially from the media. It isn't helpful when your race is the casual punchline on Family Guy.  Its pretty rough. Most people of color apparently feel alienated from "white" society and feel like they don't have a place in that society. Our ideal of a commercial paradise where people are judged on their merits has not come to fruition. 

 

  I think its important to recognize that kind of damage. 

 

  However I don't really want to support people's false sense of pride they get from heritage.  In discussions with White Nationalists, I have pointed out time and time again that nationalism doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak. It draws energy away from your real life and asks you to sacrifice real values for its cause. Black Nationalists want to essentialy set up protectionist policies in black communities. White nationalists want white people to reproduce a whole ton. Zionists criticize Jews living outside of Israel as being greedy and not loving their people or god. Its the same crap across the board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for the people to substitute "I" for "WE" in order the get pseudo-security and self-esteem. And which "WE" could be more natural than ethnic or racial identity? Communists tried to change ethnic " WE" to the class "WE" and failed. During WWII Stalin left internationalism and class solidarity and went back to the old "good" nationalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for the people to substitute "I" for "WE" in order the get pseudo-security and self-esteem. And which "WE" could be more natural than ethnic or racial identity? Communists tried to change ethnic " WE" to the class "WE" and failed. During WWII Stalin left internationalism and class solidarity and went back to the old "good" nationalism. 

 

that's because there is a biological basis (as remote as it may be) for nationalism. There is nothing for class solidarity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well nationalism seems to make a little more sense. National conflicts seem to be a greater driver of history than class conflict. Also people have an  immoratalism via blood concept inherited from the medieval era, where they imagine that they are somehow living on through their descendants after they die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well nationalism seems to make a little more sense. National conflicts seem to be a greater driver of history than class conflict. Also people have an  immoratalism via blood concept inherited from the medieval era, where they imagine that they are somehow living on through their descendants after they die. 

Yes, only that the quest for the immortal is not Medieval, it is hardwired. Our genes and instinct drive us to procreate and the mind rationalizes that as living forever, but the sentiment is much more biological. It makes sense. Many atheists have children as to give continuity to their lives. Others write great novels. Some do both. 

History can be seen as a great struggle between the mind and the genes, or the individual's volition and its baser instincts.

But instincts have been there before the Medieval Age! And sadly remain afterwards  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, only that the quest for the immortal is not Medieval, it is hardwired. Our genes and instinct drive us to procreate and the mind rationalizes that as living forever, but the sentiment is much more biological. It makes sense. Many atheists have children as to give continuity to their lives. Others write great novels. Some do both. 

History can be seen as a great struggle between the mind and the genes, or the individual's volition and its baser instincts.

But instincts have been there before the Medieval Age! And sadly remain afterwards

How is different from the idea of original sin? Baser instincts? Sadly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is different from the idea of original sin? Baser instincts? Sadly?

 

I don't understand the connection. The idea of original sin is particular to a part of the World, it doesn't appear (as far as I know) in Chinese or Amerindian cultures. The idea of reproduction as a means to give continuity to the genes your carry (some people would call their genes, their soul, other their blood) is universal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to the idea of viewing history as a great struggle between mind and baser elements be they genes or instincts. It is a view of man as a being of warring halves. Or at least a being comprised of separate 'humors' and not an integrated and 'whole' being.

The idea of original sin 'puts' an imperfection into man that he must overcome and can not escape. The implication being that would be a different being without it, man was once a more perfect being and something other than what constitutes man is present. Eastern ideas seem to share a similar view that man is perfectible if something within is removed or overcome. Both seem to imply that man is a being ,or that the concept refers to a being other than existential humans.

Unfortunately I hd to ruh this,guest approaching hopefully I will be able to expand and correct

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I understand what you're getting at. 

with genes vs self I don't make the same dualistic distinction as in mind/body. It would be mind and body vs the portable, reproducible piece of information that we live for: our genetic coding. 

There was an excellent essay by Patri Friedman I can't quiet find that explains it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...