The problem with dominating the planet

[Nash]

first, i want to say that for all of you who are interested in reading hegel, let me warn you first that it is very abstract. you'll have to read it over and over and think about it a lot to understand it.

ok, nick, to tackle your situation. i don't particularly agree with this, but according to hegel, there isn't really such a thing as a self image, per se. our self image is based on our interpretation of how others see us. we are not self conscious until we meet someone else. thus, this ideal self image is created through what others think, even if it is for yourself. furthermore, the ideal that you speak of cannot exist without other people. if you never ever had contact with another person, let alone civilization, hegel believes that this ideal self would not exist because there is no standard to measure it against.

rick, on your post, i completely agree. i don't think there will ever be a mutual recognition. capitalism is another concrete example of the master/slave dialectic. in hegelian terms, marx's idealistic communism is the ultimate solution to transcend that master/slave dialectic. however, like you said, i believe that there will always be someone who will want more recognition, and the cycle will repeat.

[rezo]

if you never ever had contact with another person, let alone civilization, hegel believes that this ideal self would not exist because there is no standard to measure it against.

Other people would not be necessary for the creation of
an ideal self. Imperfections will make themselves apparent through
our mistakes. A being that exists without those imperfections will
represent the ideal.

other humans are useful tools in determining what a standard should be, but they are not a necessity. As the standard being created doesn't literally exist(not mine anyways), it can be compared to other theoretical standards, and in that respect, there are an infinite amount of standards to measure it against.



As for recognition. Expecting it is one thing. Doing something
for the sake of it is quite different.I don't care for recognition to much. Anything can be great when compared to something lesser.

[Nash]

Originally posted by rezo


Other people would not be necessary for the creation of
an ideal self. Imperfections will make themselves apparent through
our mistakes. A being that exists without those imperfections will
represent the ideal.

imperfection has a standard. there has to be a standard for what is perfect in order for there to be a standard of imperfection.

other humans are useful tools in determining what a standard should be, but they are not a necessity. As the standard being created doesn't literally exist(not mine anyways), it can be compared to other theoretical standards, and in that respect, there are an infinite amount of standards to measure it against.

you can't really say that you don't have a standard because you've already been exposed to other beings and the society you are in. if you were in another society, your standard would be different, accordingly to that society.

As for recognition. Expecting it is one thing. Doing something
for the sake of it is quite different.I don't care for recognition to much. Anything can be great when compared to something lesser.

hegel does argue that people do things for recognition. it's clear that you disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that. take love for example. according to hegel, people love each other because they want to be love. they desire the affection of the other person. to him, even unconditional love is conditional, and that condition being that the unconditional love be recognized.

as for the ice cream analogy you used, when i want to eat ice cream, and you impede that, a struggle of master/slave comes out of that. you want to make me the slave and recognize that can exert a will over me by not allowing me to eat the ice cream. i fight back to make you my slave, showing that you do not have the power to stop me from eating the ice cream. if i don't eat the ice cream because of you, i have given in, and you become the master, and i am the slave. if i do eat the ice cream, then you have given in thus becoming the slave, while i become the master.

as for what i think of hegel, there are parts that i agree with, like the idea that the master/slave dialectic is everywhere in this world (although this is simplifying it a bit). however, what i think is impossible (ok, not impossible, but highly improbable), is the idea that there can be a mutual recognition. i think there will always be a struggle for recognition, someway or another.

finally, i want to note that this isn't hegel in its entirety, but is is pretty much the basics. it is pretty complicated and abstract, and i'm just trying to concrete and ground it as much as possible. i also want to note that i am not a hegel master. i, like you guys, am still learning more about the master/slave dialectic, through other various thinkers, such as marx, freud, nietzche, etc.

[rezo]

imperfection has a standard. there has to be a standard for what is perfect in order for there to be a standard of imperfection.

I defined the standard for perfect as "without flaws". I defined
flaws based on mistakes made. the imperfect standard was one which contained those flaws. So, hypothetically, if a human were to exist and be able to sustain himself without other humans, or knowledge of them, he would still be able to create standards and ideals that he would like to achieve. By making a mistake, he would be aware of a flaw, and the ideal he creates, would exist without that flaw. The standard of "perfect"(or, "without known flaws") would be able to exist and is not dependent on existing literally. He does not need to witness it to understand it.


Also, I was talking about a theoretical standard that I have created for myself as an ideal. Now, I don't deny that my views are affected by what I interact with, and that has played a role in my development.
The question is, is my standard dependent on the conditions I was raised in? It certainly is not present in my life, and I have not witnessed it directly ever. The interaction with humans is not a necessity in creating a standard. What is necessary is the knowledge that leads to the creation of the standards. There is also the role interaction plays in forming our ideals.

Are we guided by society towards a particular conclusion?
Or are we refining what society gives us into a particular conclusion?

I believe the latter. I believe the probable conclusion of some people
is broader than others, and so , given the circumstances they are in, they may vary greatly. However, I believe there are others, who, in nearly all situations, would retain a decent level of consistency. If I look at my life, or tell people of it, they would expect me to be an angry person with a short temper. I have the excuses. But that is not what I am. Society presented the circumstances that leads to that popularly leads to that behavior, but we have the ability to accept and reject what is presented to us at a remarkably early age.

damn. I got off track.

ok, the point I started out with is, the ideals many create do not exist anywhere in this world. Therefore, you cannot say they require the existence of other humans to use as a comparable standard because, the ideal exists independent of other humans, is theoretical, and can be compared to an infinite number of other theoretical standards, and none that exist in the real world.

perhaps:

A:"climbs trees, swims, successful hunter"

B"can't climb trees, swims, successful hunter"

C"can't climb trees, doesn't swim, fails at hunt(we'll say he eats fruits often. . .the ones on the floor)"

Now. these properties can exist in any one man. and by that mans ownership of any one of these sets of traits, he can become aware of
the others to some degree.

Now, call A B and C standards. the awareness of only one of these sets is enough to create the others, and multiple humans are not necessary to understand the existence of any of them.

as for the ice cream analogy you used, when i want to eat ice cream, and you impede that, a struggle of master/slave comes out of that. you want to make me the slave and recognize that can exert a will over me by not allowing me to eat the ice cream. i fight back to make you my slave, showing that you do not have the power to stop me from eating the ice cream. if i don't eat the ice cream because of you, i have given in, and you become the master, and i am the slave. if i do eat the ice cream, then you have given in thus becoming the slave, while i become the master.

this is what I was wondering about. However, the "master" of the contest need not participate with the intent of making the other his "slave". He could be working towards his previously created goal, and the contestant is simply an obstacle. Granted, he "could" want to "make him recognize that he could exert a will over you by not allowing you to eat ice cream". But, its more likely that he will simply want to eat the ice cream himself, and your not eating the ice cream is simply a by product of that. Indeed, in both cases, it can be said that the driving force of the interaction is to reach the ice cream, and not to make the other recognize dominance.
However, in regards to the "master/slave" emergence being based on the success of one man over another, it makes sense. In most interactions, One will emerge victorious, either because the other failed or gave up. In failure, or giving up, you are putting yourself at the mercy of the "master". However, to say the goal of all of these actions is the recognition is too presumptuous. It amounts to an arbitrary conclusion when others are disregarded so easily.


Nietzche? I did read his bit on master/slave. I agree with that a lot.
I supported it in class, and people kept saying it was wrong because Nazis used it. . .


the love analogy makes sense.I believe the "master slave dialectic" suits those circumstances well, but is too narrow to be universal.

[Nash]

Originally posted by rezo


I defined the standard for perfect as "without flaws". I defined
flaws based on mistakes made. the imperfect standard was one which contained those flaws. So, hypothetically, if a human were to exist and be able to sustain himself without other humans, or knowledge of them, he would still be able to create standards and ideals that he would like to achieve. By making a mistake, he would be aware of a flaw, and the ideal he creates, would exist without that flaw. The standard of "perfect"(or, "without known flaws") would be able to exist and is not dependent on existing literally. He does not need to witness it to understand it.


Also, I was talking about a theoretical standard that I have created for myself as an ideal. Now, I don't deny that my views are affected by what I interact with, and that has played a role in my development.
The question is, is my standard dependent on the conditions I was raised in? It certainly is not present in my life, and I have not witnessed it directly ever. The interaction with humans is not a necessity in creating a standard. What is necessary is the knowledge that leads to the creation of the standards. There is also the role interaction plays in forming our ideals.

Are we guided by society towards a particular conclusion?
Or are we refining what society gives us into a particular conclusion?

I believe the latter. I believe the probable conclusion of some people
is broader than others, and so , given the circumstances they are in, they may vary greatly. However, I believe there are others, who, in nearly all situations, would retain a decent level of consistency. If I look at my life, or tell people of it, they would expect me to be an angry person with a short temper. I have the excuses. But that is not what I am. Society presented the circumstances that leads to that popularly leads to that behavior, but we have the ability to accept and reject what is presented to us at a remarkably early age.

damn. I got off track.

ok, the point I started out with is, the ideals many create do not exist anywhere in this world. Therefore, you cannot say they require the existence of other humans to use as a comparable standard because, the ideal exists independent of other humans, is theoretical, and can be compared to an infinite number of other theoretical standards, and none that exist in the real world.

perhaps:

A:"climbs trees, swims, successful hunter"

B"can't climb trees, swims, successful hunter"

C"can't climb trees, doesn't swim, fails at hunt(we'll say he eats fruits often. . .the ones on the floor)"

Now. these properties can exist in any one man. and by that mans ownership of any one of these sets of traits, he can become aware of
the others to some degree.

Now, call A B and C standards. the awareness of only one of these sets is enough to create the others, and multiple humans are not necessary to understand the existence of any of them.

i understand what you're saying here, but i kinda disagree. i'll use your tree climbing example to explain. if i were a being by myself, and i tried to climb a tree and couldn't do it, i don't think i would consider that a flaw. i would just think, "oh, i can't climb a tree. maybe i don't have the ability to climb a tree, like i don't have a bird's ability to fly." however, let's say that you come along and climb the tree i was trying to climb; then i would now consider myself flawed, because you can do it, but i can't. that's how i see it.

this is what I was wondering about. However, the "master" of the contest need not participate with the intent of making the other his "slave". He could be working towards his previously created goal, and the contestant is simply an obstacle. Granted, he "could" want to "make him recognize that he could exert a will over you by not allowing you to eat ice cream". But, its more likely that he will simply want to eat the ice cream himself, and your not eating the ice cream is simply a by product of that. Indeed, in both cases, it can be said that the driving force of the interaction is to reach the ice cream, and not to make the other recognize dominance.

you're right in that the master of the contest need not participate with the intent of making the other his slave; but it just so happens that way, either intentionally or unintentionally. for example, when you're hanging out with a friend, you guys don't intentionally try to have a more dominant personality over the other, it just happens.

However, in regards to the "master/slave" emergence being based on the success of one man over another, it makes sense. In most interactions, One will emerge victorious, either because the other failed or gave up. In failure, or giving up, you are putting yourself at the mercy of the "master". However, to say the goal of all of these actions is the recognition is too presumptuous. It amounts to an arbitrary conclusion when others are disregarded so easily.

i agree here. i think it is presumptuous. even though i like hegel's master/slave dialectic, i think it's a bit too suspicious. the ultimate goal is for a world full of masters? hmmm....

Nietzche? I did read his bit on master/slave. I agree with that a lot.
I supported it in class, and people kept saying it was wrong because Nazis used it. . .

[Hero]

I think Nietche is wrong because he contradicts himself.

The idea being is one who follows his own rules and determines to follow those based upon himself, not on a sheep mentality.

Yet...just pointing that out means no one else can follow it, for fear of being a sheep, yes?

I mean, if a whole bunch of kids can follow Nietzche's ideas because it 'speaks' to them but then condemns those who follow a religion...

For example, I've never been pressured to believe in God. Ever. Even the slightest hint would never have swayed me to that party's particular persuasion. In short, I believe what I do over my own trial and error and over my own introspection and over my own conclusions. So how come, even for all that, Nietzche would just blanket me as a sheep?

[Nick]

The absence of competition does not automatically create an absence of standards of perfection. Certain individuals strive to consistently surpass themselves. A rational person who is entirely isolated from other humans can recognize that progressive training in a physical or mental endeavor brings improvement. As he strives for mastery of his environment, he can set goals of perfection. His justifications may be primitive, but his thought processes parallel our own. After all, even we don't know what our limitations truly are.

Though he doesn't have Olympic athletes or Nobel Prize recipients to use for comparison, he does have his own performance. Thus, his standards of perfection are are nearly as valid as ours, and every bit as relevant to his situation. He surprised himself the first time he climbed a rock face just as we surprised ourselves the first time we detonated an atomic bomb.

It is the quality of the mind and body that matters.

Hero, I haven't read Nietzche all that much, but I would imagine that a lot of people would consider you a sheep for adopting a ready-set morality with no room for significant deviation. Add to that the Biblical backstory and the demands of faith in a non-empirical hierarchy of Heaven, and (fairly or not) the fact that your religion is, by far, the professed system of belief for the majority of the people in your area, and the argument becomes harder to refute. I know it sounds like I am taking a shot at you, but that is an unfortunate side-effect of answering your question.

[rezo]

I think Nietche is wrong because he contradicts himself.

The idea being is one who follows his own rules and determines to follow those based upon himself, not on a sheep mentality.

Yet...just pointing that out means no one else can follow it, for fear of being a sheep, yes?

no. The idea is independence. If you agree with what someone else is
doing, you should then do it yourself. However, you should not do it for the sake or comfort of everyone else also doing it. Likewise, you should not become dependent on people who are doing what you accept for your own benefit. Rather, fix circumstance to put yourself in as much control as you can.

hell, not doing something so that you "aren't a sheep" is the same as doing something as if you were one, yes?



If Nietzche is wrong in his blanketing you as a "sheep", it is in the practice of his own ideaology that he is flawed. There are many other religious people who can be used to support his case.Everyone goes through there own sets of reasonings before coming to a conclusion. Perhaps that set includes making sure people aren't bothered by you. In the very least, introspection and the nature of the thought process isn't enough to identify yourself as independent. Rather, what goes on during that process would give a much better idea.