Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

"Jealous"? Do you really think that is why I (or others) have replied as I (we) have? I think that here, our context is rather broader, and we're considering most if not all of humanity, not just a few envious individuals. Is that not so?

But to get to the heart of this, perhaps we could usefully consider what we mean by "successful"? We started off with the end result — wealth; riches — and tracked back to see where that wealth came from. Then, setting aside those who merely inherited family wealth, you looked at capable and 'successful' people. But what is it about those people that leads you to describe them as "successful"? Is it just that they have obtained or achieved wealth, or is there more to it than that?

Okay, to be financially successful. Whatever. And yes, you seem to be jealous.

If "successful" means acquiring and retaining personal wealth — the capitalist's mantra — then I personally reject it. And I have lived my life (in the capitalist country in which I was born and raised) accordingly. I have tried to give priority to the happiness and wellbeing of me and my family, over financial 'success'.

I find that my attitude to "success", as you describe it, is closer to despising it than to being "jealous" of the poor misguided souls who have (IMO!) wasted their lives chasing $$$.🤑🤑🤑

It seems to me that you protest too much. If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.

Worldly success often involves more than it seems on face value - greater involvement, understanding and connection than is average. So I don't reject financial success, rather I accept that I never had the kinds of skills and aptitudes needed to achieve in that area.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.

I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.

[Sy Borg]

If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.

I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.

You have been hammering the rich as keenly as any of the other socialists on this board. I do not decry the wealth of people who are lucky enough to have interests that are well-paid, or who are prepared to work very hard for what they have, or who are simply lucky, or who persist through hardships. Good for them. Nor do I consider the less well-off as being morally superior to the wealthy. It always depends on the individual. That's what matters.

The wealthy are just like everyone else - varied individuals, with some commonalities listed above. I consider intersectionality to be largely philosophically invalid - just facts about humans that they overrate. Class, race, gender, sexuality - these are categories for demographers, politicians and advertisers, that cares nothing for one's internality.

MLK's view is more philosophically sound and rational than DEI, but this views are treated with contempt by the emerging hive mind, for now.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you truly felt for the "poor misguided souls" you would speak with less hostility towards them.

I can't remember every word I've posted in this topic, but I don't remember being hostile toward the "poor misguided souls", only to stating that they have my sympathy and pity. Perhaps I misdescribed my feelings, so that sympathy/pity were not sufficiently emphasised, making it seem like I was being hostile? If so, I apologise for my lack of clarity.

You have been hammering the rich as keenly as any of the other socialists on this board.

Ah. I see a difference between "the rich", and the poor misguided souls who live — and choose to live — their lives in pursuit of (financial) "success". [For a start, "the rich" are a group of people, hopefully a small group, considered as such. While these other souls are individuals, also considered as such.]

I do not decry the wealth of people who are lucky enough to have interests that are well-paid, or who are prepared to work very hard for what they have, or who are simply lucky, or who persist through hardships. Good for them. Nor do I consider the less well-off as being morally superior to the wealthy. It always depends on the individual. That's what matters.

The wealthy are just like everyone else - varied individuals, with some commonalities listed above. I consider intersectionality to be largely philosophically invalid - just facts about humans that they overrate. Class, race, gender, sexuality - these are categories for demographers, politicians and advertisers, that cares nothing for one's internality.

MLK's view is more philosophically sound and rational than DEI, but this views are treated with contempt by the emerging hive mind, for now.

I know that such views are fairly common, but they are not my views, which is what you seem to be saying here. There is some truth in those views, I think, but mixed with other stuff too, maybe other stuff that confuses what we're seeing or discussing?

As for MLK, I wonder if he simply expressed himself in terms that are not as popular now as they were then?

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

[Sy Borg]

As for MLK, I wonder if he simply expressed himself in terms that are not as popular now as they were then?

... All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

To my mind, if you have a vacant position, choose the person you think is likely to do the best job. Simple.

If renting a home, offer it to those you see as most reliable, capable and willing to keep up to date with rent, and least likely to damage the property. Simple.

If creating art, aim for strong characterisation, plot, ideas and originality - and ignore DEI messaging. If a story organically leads to messaging that could be interpreted as DEI-friendly, fine, but don't force it the way Disney and others have done. It's pandering, it's condescending, manipulative and insincere. It usually leads to lazy and sloppy writing of coloured, gay and disabled characters, and Strong Female Leads being written without personality - their personality is their victim status, and their goal is not to grow, as in old-school character arcs, only to realise that they already perfect. This issue is more complicated and threatens the future of art and creativity, especially comedy/satire.

[Pattern-chaser]

That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?

[Sy Borg]

That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?

The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do. You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.

Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic for the fact that people who looked most like them out-competed those who did not look like them. No, many white males have no more connection to dominant citizens of the past than anyone else. They are actually different people, different individuals.

Your attitude treats all white people as the same, and it also treats all "people of colour" as the same, even though many people of colour have nothing else in common with others. However, if there is extra melanin, they are deemed victims.

By your reckoning, Obama is a victim and he is Oppressed but a suicidal white fentanyl addict male prostitute living on the streets is deemed to be the Oppressor, and must pay restitution to the Obamas.

[Pattern-chaser]

That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?

The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do.

You're at it again! You (clearly ) don't know what I think. Why not confine yourself to telling me/us what *YOU* think? That is something of which you have reliable knowledge, after all.

You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.

I truly and sincerely hope not.

Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic...

I choose not to respond to these accusations. This is not philosophy. This is ... discourteous and hurtful.

[Sy Borg]

That is my objection to DEI - it separates on the basis of race, gender and sexuality.

That is why I tentatively approve of DEI - it separates on the basis of any/all criteria used to 'excuse' (i.e. impose) discrimination in the past. It seeks to help those who have been harmed, and tends to focus *only* on those who have been harmed. This is the "separation" you write of, yes?

The past is gone. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you think they do.

You're at it again! You (clearly 👆) don't know what I think. Why not confine yourself to telling me/us what *YOU* think? That is something of which you have reliable knowledge, after all. 👍

What a load of gaslighting. You advocate for wrongs to be committed to address former wrongs to make a right, but whine when this is pointed out.

You know my view. Treat people as individuals, not to punish innocents for the imagined crimes of people who looked a bit like them. You ignore or dismiss the fact that ALL people have forebears who committed atrocities in this competitive world.

By your approach, all people should be in an endless state of war, demanding restitution for the past. So you simplify it and just blame Evil Whites.

You think you are on the side of justice, but you are an emissary of hatred.

I truly and sincerely hope not.

You are - see above.

Your post is pure racism, seeking to punish everyone in a particular demographic...

I choose not to respond to these accusations. This is not philosophy. This is ... discourteous and hurtful.

Speaking honestly on a philosophy forum is not discourteous. However, your attempts to gaslight me are disrespectful. You seek to punish everyone in particular demographics, but then pretend that you don't - when it suits.

You have the option to reflect on your obvious racism - where you advocate the punishing of young pale-skinned people for the imagined sins of their forefathers, and why you have developed racist attitudes. However, it's easier to simply play the guilt game and blame me for being mean, seeing your racism as a necessary tool against Evil Oppressors.

Marxism 101.

[Pattern-chaser]

You know my view.

Actually, I/we don't. I/We know your views on others' views — angry and often discourteous — but little of what you think.

There is little point continuing this exchange, that promises only ill-tempered disagreement.

[Sy Borg]

You know my view.

Actually, I/we don't. I/We know your views on others' views — angry and often discourteous — but little of what you think.

There is little point continuing this exchange, that promises only ill-tempered disagreement.

Don't lie about me and then expect me to be quiet because you say so. This is not about me of my imagined ill-temper. This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past. That is simply racism.

I am just calling the situation for what it is, without any level of the anger you falsely claim. Rather than play victim, you might try debating, you know, like a philosopher.

[Good_Egg]

This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past.

We may differ about how distant the past is.
But that some people hold this belief - that those who have committed no crime should be punished for the sins of their ancestors - seems an undeniable fact

It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).

Our enemies are the wrong ideas to which our friends have been exposed and have uncritically accepted. Criticism is the business of philosophy - does the idea really hold water ? In this case it evidently doesn't. "Justice between races" requires injustice to individuals, and is - as you say - racism (= treating people as an instance of a race rather than as a person).

[Pattern-chaser]

It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).

I hope Pattern-Chaser has already expressed clearly and openly, his beliefs as they apply to this topic.

Your final jibe does you no credit, though. I am surprised and disappointed to read it.

[Sy Borg]

This is about your belief that innocent people should be punished because people who looked a bit like them are said to have done wrong in a distant past.

We may differ about how distant the past is.
But that some people hold this belief - that those who have committed no crime should be punished for the sins of their ancestors - seems an undeniable fact

It's up to Pattern-chaser to say clearly how far he agrees with this belief. (Without hiding behind accusations of discourtesy).

Our enemies are the wrong ideas to which our friends have been exposed and have uncritically accepted. Criticism is the business of philosophy - does the idea really hold water ? In this case it evidently doesn't. "Justice between races" requires injustice to individuals, and is - as you say - racism (= treating people as an instance of a race rather than as a person).

No, it's not just about what one's ancestors did, it's about the actions of people who look something like one's ancestors. Our ancestors need not to have done any crime for us to be deemed guilty. It is pure racism.

Racism is about judging people by race, not their individuality. That's the main reason why I left the left - it had not only abandoned the MLK ideation that I always believed in but now treats such "colour blindness" with contempt. I didn't change - the left did.