Let's Walk and Talk... Philosophy!

by Nu Scribes scribe bio

Published by NuScribes (nuscribes.com) on Mon 14 Aug, 2017 |

Book Cover Art

All man's progress (and occassionally, his downfall), starts with a thought. This is the single reason why thinking - right thinking - is such a critical thing to mankind. Thinking on its own is adorable, but when employed in the pursuit of Truth, is the most remarkable faculty posssessed by mankind.

It is thinking, applied in this manner, that we call Philosophy, and far from the constraints of formal debates, dull classes or tense sermons, philosophy has been (and is still) practised and enjoyed by men and women of all kinds; from way back, when man first questioned the relevance of keeping a wolf about him instead of chasing it off, to this present moment -  as you probably ponder whether it makes sense to allow this volume to engage your thinking capacity for the next couple minutes or days... or whether it's easier and preferable give-in to the temptation of ignoring Truth.

Think about it, don't you really want to find out more? Ask more questions? Question the answers and counter-answers? Compare competing "truths" or just discard all pretensions to truth and just seek the Truth? And what is Truth anyways?

Why not join us, take a long walk, as we talk and think, about some very important questions, so we can finally sit down or jump (in surrender or celebration), when we finally stumble upon the Truth! Truth, when finally possessed, sets you FREE and EMPOWERS YOU. Come, let's walk...

JWL - In Defense of Meritocracy, a Just Elitism

Without losing ourselves in unrealistic ideals,  it is indeed unfair and unjust for one to consider that all humans are created equal. Simple observation of the varied conditions under which every mother bares her child or even the intrinsic, biological and psychological variations with which every other child is born with,  would only make clear that the idea that "we were created equal" though plausible,  isn't equivalent to the notion that  "all humans are equal", and neither can it be argued that the later is a consequence of the former. We are not equal, and it's more by design than accident in my opinion.

Consider this case of the man and his wife: On the one hand,  you have a man who forever must wake up before sunrise and sleep past midnight,  all in pursuit of the bread and dress his wife demands. The wife, on the other hand, only knows to arise close to midday, tidy herself and the home,  eat everything her husband can afford,  after which she spends the rest of her waking hours daydreaming,  gossiping, watching the latest soap or series, reading a fashion magazine or making more demands of her husband. If in such an unfortunate home (not so far off from many families I know of today),  it were to be considered law, for the man and woman to have the same rights and privileges (and it probably is, under many current jurisdictions), oh how much injustice their would be under that roof!

No. Justice is this;  that everyone is accorded honor, privilege and entitlement only in proportion to their worth. To do otherwise would be a violation of sense (however uncommon nowadays) and reason. The basic thesis being;  considering that the common good is greater than that of the individual,  then,  if one person should possess utility to the group as does another,  it would be logical and fair,  for each to be valued or treasured (by those to whom they hold value), in proportion to their effective utility. It ought be such, for any form of reward or entitlement, and as can then be seen,  unless each human were to be of uniform utility to his fellows (in comparison to all),  then some men would warrant higher entitlement than others - and this is not equality - by virtue of what each man possesses, but (interestingly and more importantly),  is equality in the sense that every man would only be entitled to reward, according to his worth. Whether or not the reward is bestowed unto him or not is another matter, but that he that deserves it can get it in principle is the important thing. We are thus equal under law, not in kind, and this is, as will soon be observed, is a principle of mortal or human justice.

Some of you might have already started to frown upon all this in objection, as the foregoing principles seem, in light of conventional spiritual ideals, to be nothing but injustice. Yes,  by divine standards of justice,  of which only God can be said to be an able authority and exemplar, it would be argued that based on how nature bestows her rewards upon all, without consideration for ones worth or utility to his fellow men or even nature itself, the principles just presented seem flawed.

Indeed, it isn't strange to see the murderer and his villainous sons enjoy such sublime natural rewards as sunsets, the soothing music of birds and clean air. Nor is it unheard of,  to find a just and pious man suffering from the perils of obstinate pestilences in his garden or the distress of having his home being ransacked by turbulent storms or rains. Nature seems to give and take from all and any, unconditionally, and what better way to see this than the fact that age and death befall all, irrespective of creed,  race, color or wisdom. Thus, to the judge who would seek to employ or emulate God's system of justice,  it practically be the case that no (otherwise logical) criteria would suffice, in order to bestow punishment or reward unto anyone. Divine, though such a system might seem,  it can not be doubted that given man's limited capacity to act effectively within the finite constraints of reason and based on our general inaccess to sufficient information, an attempt to act based on such ideals would most likely unleash the most ridiculous forms of injustice - and this wouldn't be the first time that pretensions to religious or divine justice have caused man much more suffering and turmoil than without.

It is for these reasons that I propose we really study and come to the appreciation of the otherwise better and more pragmatic (and utilitarian) system of meritocratic justice. Well understood and implemented, a meritocracy ought be held up high,  as man's closest approximation to a true application of justice. Though we have warned of pretensions to divine law, some of the ancient scribes acknowledged and championed the same ideals as we here present, when in some of the holy scriptures, they advocated for meritocractic justice thus:

To those that have,  more shall be given,  and to them that have close to nothing,  even the little they have,  shall be taken from them.

Which, re-hashed in a more humane manner would be:

To those few, with potential and or the capacity to produce,  for the good of others,  more ought be given, whereas,  to them that either have no potential and neither capacity to aid others, what little there is being awarded to them,  if it would benefit the majority, should be revoked from them.

 

These principles might seem mean, but it's the nature of Truth, that if you aren't ready to be objective in your inquiry and judgement, you are bound to substitute emotion for reasoning, when it comes to matters averse to your religiously held ideals. Truth doesn't have to appeal to your senses or sense of justice, it only has to be true, to be True. A meritocracy, architected well, is the ideal human republic, and would be the only means to ensure man's survival and self-earned progress.

 

Considering that there might be principles external to man's conscious control, but which principles have the potential to bias, skew and or control man's and nature's present and future (and these you can easily ascertain for yourselves if you wish), must explore the present matter from yet another angel. For purposes of this discussion, let's label such principles as "divine" or "transcedental", in contract to otherwise consciously limited principles.


So, besides the possibility of leveraging divine intervation (and this is a noble and sensible justification of classical supplication), in an otherwise purely human system, everyone ought work for and earn their place, and some would further argue,  even their life! To those who can neither work nor give,  and who can not learn to gain advantage of, or earn their worth by virtue of their relation to the divine,  they would not only fail, but would likewise have no basis for any claims to justice. It should be relatively easy to sacrifice such, who would otherwise be a huge liability in an otherwise progressive system.

In a pragmatic and utilitarian system, only utility justifies entitlement, all else being injustice, inneficience or extravagance. If we must allow for possible divine agencies acting within the system as well, then to those who would otherwise not accrue any entitlement, their utility relative to the divine principles by which they work (for example a system in which faith is a currency - as is the case with magic and religious systems), might be able to earn them entitlements, even where such might turn out to be contrary to or unjust under the meritocractic principles we have just highlighted - the magician can (justly) cheat the system, and it might be hard or impossible to hold them accountable.

Ultimately, if one is only human, they ought work for what they earn. For those capable of harnessing divine principles so as to produce proof of entitlement without trading (mundane) work, by virtue of their divine capacity, are thus entitled to what they can get (and nothing more). To all else, nothing is owed by nature or the system. Such is the just meritocracy, in which both the logical and divine laws can co-exist as arbitrators of justice.


The world is not fair, and that's nature

The following is an outline of a brutal, but realistic philosophy of power in our world.

  1. The world is not fair, and not just in the human ecosystem, but also in the concrete, elemental realm. This unfairness is a law on all levels - human, corporeal, and even on the spiritual realm! So, what do we do?
  2. The poor will have qualms about the unfairness of the rich, the opposition will have qualms against the unfairness of the ruling, the students will find trouble with the teachers, the slaves find their masters unfair, etc etc.
  3. To wish for, dream or ask for a fair world is unreasonable.
  4. Humans are not equal, never.
  5. Where there is a leader, there will always have to be subordinates - a necessary inequality.
  6. Ideal Democracy is not only unattainable, it's inhuman - and as long as we are humans, can only speak of it in the abstract, never as something implemented or realized.
  7. Any leader with entirely no dictatorial power however small, is not a leader but a puppet.
  8. Humans, the ones that can't lead, need a leader always - someone not only to show them the way, but most times, also to dictate what that way is.
  9. The only way as humans we can expect to attain a truly fair political system, is if some inhuman power takes over not just the planning, but the execution of our politics, only then, can we expect to see a fair political system being implemented - and for this to work, no humans should have taken part in the invocation of these new, alien powers.
  10. In such an unfair world, what is the disgruntled to do? What is the subordinate to do? What is the slave to do? Only two things - remain subordinate: accept that the world is not fair, and additionally accept to be lead and controlled. Or, become the new leader: - accept that the world is unfair (to the old leadership perhaps), and fight to overtake the old master, so as to become the new master - once a master, you would then only mantain your power, by being what you are meant to be - the leader of your subjects, anything else, and another master ought replace you already.
  11. War is part of us. Chaos is in our very fabric - it's part of nature.
  12. To give humans utopia, is to rid them of their wellbeing - imagine the improbableness of a heaven - a state where every human is able to act on free will, and yet, one where it's expected that everyone is fair to another? No progress - in such a state, everything just is and ever shall be - then, and only then, perhaps one can talk of equality (from the perspective of inability to change). So, it means, not even the formation of thoughts is possible, as for a thought to arise, stasis either is dominated, or out of the existing chaos, new chaos has to emerge - without thesis and antithesis, there can be no synthesis! So, utopia, that state where everything has been attained, where every ideal has been reached, is not only impractical, but for a world where progress and constant change seem to be the sinews upon which things operate, it's downright illogical to think of or expect that we can make utopia manifest.
  13. Conflict is a part of our nature.
  14. What matters then? What are you, as an individual doing about it? Yes, it's weak to expect that someone with power ought sacrifice it so you, seated on your ass, might claim ownership to even a bit of it! The only way to get a share of the naturally, unfair distribution of power, is to cause chaos! You woke up, realized you need power? Heck, go to the leader, and put them on their knees! If you can't fight for you claim to power - using not violence, but even commerce, intellect, or charm, then you don't deserve power in the very first place. Being a leader, being the elite, of its own nature, means you surpass those relative to whom you are above. Anything else is just a hoax, and that's typically what those calling for equality, fairness and the like delude themselves with - well, perhaps they also are fighting for power, by deluding those in power to think they aren't actually powerful - it's easier to rob a king of his power, if you can convince him that he's nothing but a mere mortal such as you, so beware.
  15. It's an unfair world, and their only two ways to exist therein: submit or make others submit - there's no other way.
  16. An ideal democracy is one where the majority, choose the minority to whom they will be subordinate - basically, the slaves decide who their masters shall be, willfully. BUT, that's not pragmatic, or never was realized ever. Instead, the REAL Democracy as practiced today, is where the minority shuffle power among themselves, occasionally letting one of the majority join them or demoting one of the minority to the majority, but all the while, keeping the masses convinced, that they are the ones calling all the shots. Democracy, as practiced today, is a game of stealth deception and mass psychology. The only difference between a classical dictator and the modern democracy is that in the dictatorship, the minority doesn't care to lie to the masses that they don't hold any power, whereas, in modern, smart democracy, the minority uses whatever methods they can muster, to convince the powerless that they actually possess power. That way, the modern democracy can reign forever, continually disempowering their subjects, while the classical dictatorship lets brutes claim and stay in power, for as long as they can bark the hardest or for as long as they can scare away anyone else who can likewise bark hard. This is modern politics, and it's not fair.
  17. You want power? Get up and claim it, otherwise, only the powerless are ever going to give any to you - in which case, you deserve it. In the real world? Only those who fight, deserve to have the power.
  18. Machiavelli was always right - Might is Right - and it's not just military or economic might, but intellectual and spiritual might as well. The gist of it being, not everyone is might (in the same way) - that's both what is flawed with, and what also makes this philosophy great. You are only weak, apparently. Those who regard themselves weak, have let it be, and so deserve to be controlled and lead. Wake up!
  19. The world is not fair.
  20. God isn't fair either - and that's how perfect he is.

This outline is a draft, and will possibly change sooner or later, to correct errors, and improve the concept.


In a world of masters and elites, who scrubs the toilets and what makes them qualified to do so?

Someone once asked this question on /r/occult, and I felt compelled to give the following response - which I not echo here as well, since the ideas/response I gave serve to illustrate some aspects of my philosophy as has been outlines in other parts of this book or elsewhere...

In this perfect world, "imperfection" is part of the design, and is in most ways than not necessary - it's the oil that keeps the machinery working (as it should?). Where there are masters, there ought be slaves/servants. It's inevitable.

By extension, if it were that all humans ought be equal or that there ought be fundamental equality, I argue that things would soon spiral into morbid stasis.

We need Chaos to perpetuate life and (the illusion of) progress!

In terms of social justice; I don't expect that egalitarianism is even feasible except as a thought experiment - start by demanding a physical basis for equality, and soon you'll either be mad or fanatic evangelist of a mere pipe-dream.

Where there are things to be learned - as in the world we live in, there will by necessity be teachers and students, those who know and those who don't. Heck, thanks to the complacent, passive nature of most of modern society, there's even those who are neither interested in being slaves or masters - they just want to be or don't know what to be!

Anything but egalitarianism. To those with the will to power, should they decide to act upon it, let them be free to find and seize that power. In some cases, it's even going to be necessary to create imbalances just so the end can be attained. It's all nature, and there's only something wrong with it, because you have chosen to be on the wrong side of an otherwise impersonal phenomenon. To all else, well... let Chaos prevail!