Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A sick society
in Philosophy
A great man once said: it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
Do you agree that society is sick - it encourages brutality, competition etc.? Does such a society have the moral right to condemn anyone? And as this man said, why is it we find people (parents advising children, or shrinks advising patients) encouraging everyone to fit into this society?
Do you agree that society is sick - it encourages brutality, competition etc.? Does such a society have the moral right to condemn anyone? And as this man said, why is it we find people (parents advising children, or shrinks advising patients) encouraging everyone to fit into this society?
1
Comments
Yes, I do think that society has the right to condemn people that are too far outside the norms of that society's morals. Now perhaps the word "condemn" is a bit strong, but didn't Buddha teach that one should carefully select one's associates. Who should be condemned -- murderers? Child molesters? Again, where do we draw the line?
In terms of fitting into society, again it's a question of degree. But are those who are too far outside of societal norms happy and content? I think not.
I believe that our society got sick because competition has been limited, or, better put, misdirected. Instead of having a competition between , let's say, who is the first put a flag and build a colony on Mars, it's about who has the most money, the most b*tches, the shiniest bling and so on. The competition is (mis)directed to small things, instead of big things ( that will require everybody's whole focus, skill and energy) .
We find people encouraging everyone to fit in this society because :
1. human society is based on herd instinct;
2. parents want obedient children;
3. shrinks would have no clients if the society was 'healthy'.
Essentially the same forces which drive samsara on a personal level drive whole societies to violence and self deception, and this feeds back into personal samsara.
The diagnosis is easy. The question, @music, is what are you going to do about it personally?
I agree with:
"A great man once said: it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. "
I would even go so far as to say that it is a healthy mind that is not able to adjust to a sick society.
Guess which is easier?
Welcome to the real world. :clap:
Where is the perfect human that is dehumanised?
Seeing a 'superior' position is not so different from competition, war, success etc.
Take slavery, for example. In the US, slavery (i.e., cheap labour) was seen as economically necessary in the early days, and was strongly supported by many in the propertied ruling class; and from this, a myriad of justifications for slavery arose beyond its profitability. White people living in that society often had negative views of blacks as being inferior (mentally, morally, racially, etc.), and they were treated poorly, even brutally. That's just how it was. Nevertheless, even in that context, people increasingly began to see the institution of slavery as an evil; and abolitionists, black and white, not only spoke out against it, but actively tried to help free slaves, whether through legislative means or by helping them escape via the Underground Railroad. Attitudes changed, although it took generations for the momentum of this shift in consciousness to manifest into the end of the slave trade and slavery itself, and the ideological battle against racism is still going on.
Another example is DADT. While watching the documentary The Strange History Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for example, certain events struck me as being potential real-world examples of what Marx meant when he wrote in The German Ideology, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." For example, the Crittenden Report, an internal military study done in 1957 by the US Navy, concluded that 'homosexuals' serving in the military didn't pose any kind of security risk, with subsequent studies done in the 80s and 90s by various Department of Defense agencies and think tanks(e.g., PERSEREC, RAND Corp., etc.) concluding that sexual orientation is completely unrelated to, and has no bearing on, job performance. Nevertheless, the dominate view of those in charge (i.e., the ruling material force of society) was that "Homosexuality is wrong, it is evil, and it is to be branded as such" (Crittenden Report), and all such studies were classified and essentially buried, hence the ruling idea was that gays and lesbians should be barred from the military.
President Clinton's 1993 DADT policy, which was basically a compromise between his progressive campaign rhetoric and the status quo, did little more than legalize this kind of discrimination, and homosexual witch-hunts actually increased with the implementation of 'don't ask, don't tell.' Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, both scientific and empirical (esp. nations with gays and lesbians already openly serving in the military), the ruling ideas prevailed relatively unchallenged for decades; and it was only through decades of struggle, particularly on the part of the LBGTQ community, and shifts in popular attitude, that DADT was repealed—not the facts, which were actually covered up by the powers that be because they conflicted with their ideological view of the world and challenged their ideological hegemony (a view personified in the documentary by Senator McCain).
One theory of mine about this is that the ruling class by its very nature fosters divisions within society — as in separate, competing factions à la Madison — in order to prevent a unified challenge to the institution of private property and the dominance of ruling-class ideology; and anything which tends to unite these opposing factions is perceived as a danger to those two things, as well as those it favours (i.e., the propertied and capitalist classes). Here, non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in regard to military service is a uniting force seeking to tear down a socially constructed barrier within society, which will logically help to erode discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the spheres of employment, housing, marriage, etc., thereby limiting its use as a dividing force, much the same way that struggles against discrimination on the basis of things like gender, race, etc. have attempted to do.
Of course, through constant struggle, ideas and social relations change over time; and the ruling class' ideological positions naturally must shift with them in order to compensate and insure that it maintains its control over the productive base of society, which, according to Marx's theory of base and superstructure, does a great deal to condition the rising legal and political superstructure of society. So it's expected that reforms will eventually manifest themselves, such as the allowance of gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military at the same time they're unable to legally get married in 44 of the 50 states (with none of the marriages in those 6 states being currently recognized by the federal government, by the way), and while still excluding transgendered individuals from service. And I think this particular example can not only be used to illustrate the existence of ruling class ideology, but how combating aspects of it without addressing its underlying foundation (i.e., its material/structural basis) ultimately leads to inadequate compromises and endless battles of social equality instead of truly progressive victories.
Whatever the case, in every context where the ruling ideas of society promote some form of brutality or discrimination, there are also those who fight against it and push society to change, many times for the better. But these things are complex and not easily seen for what they are, let alone undone or transcended. As a society, I think we experience an evolution in political consciousness over time just as much as we do in the traditional sense, and we're not limited to being 'sick.' There are many examples of those who don't just accept things as they are and try to do something positive about it.
Thats why we got eyes in the front, we always see other people's faults and forgive ourselves. Hence why if we are wise, we can many of other people's beef with us are genuine expressions of our short comings.
Anyway, your old as compared to me, doesn't that mean you had more time to practice your habits and attachments than me? Just because you have practice for a long time, doesn't mean you actually have the right understanding.
In addition to that, if we agree that the ideas of the ruling class are generally the prevailing ideas in society (since they're the ones who predominately control the means of mental production), their ideas will have a fair amount of influence throughout society. In this case, the ruling class itself has been relatively conservative when it comes to social issues, and this has not only been reflected in laws targeting same-sex couples, but to strong rhetoric in condemnation of same-sex relationships as well. This, I think, stems a great deal from the fact that the ruling class in this country has predominately been white, Christian males, and their religious beliefs have been incorporated into their ideology and vice versa. That doesn't mean, however, that regular people don't have the same prejudices, or that the ruling class is the sole creator of them. The relationship between the two is often more symbiotic than linear in this respect.
If you're interested in exploring this topic further, I suggest reading things like The German Ideology, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and A People's History of the United States to get a better understanding of how ruling class-interests, by way of the ruling class's relative and/or direct control over the economic base of society (i.e., the means of production), helps to determine that society's cultural, legal, and political superstructures, including its justifying ideology. The first two give a more abstract and theoretic perspective, while the latter gives more in the way of examples from the context of US history.
I stop and think what the big-money tried to do with this past election, and it is clear it didn't turn out they way they intended.
The Biblical quote regarding specks in eyes and planks in your own, springs to mind.
Quit preaching.
In general, however, it seems to me that the structure of the system changes people more than people seem to change it. For example, despite popular media, Obama went into office championing transparency and praising government whistleblowers as "often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government," yet his administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president. Despite popular media, our civil rights are still being eroded away with the passage of things like the Patriot Act, the 2008 FISA Amendment Act, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (although the indefinite detention provision was recently amended making the 2013 version a little less harmful), etc. Despite popular media, money is still a driving force in the political process, a process that now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and other collective entities. And despite popular media, once in key positions, many in the system seem to become its staunchest defenders, and seem to increase the state's power regardless of the criticism it generates.
From that point of view, the power structure is relatively closed to average citizens. And that has absolutely nothing to do with 'old money'; it has to do with the disproportionate influence of monied interests period (capital, finance, old money, new money, etc.). That doesn't mean they're always successful in whatever they try to do (especially where their interests conflict amongst each other), or that they don't experience setbacks; but the structure itself is as ossified as ever, in my opinion.
And when I said "old money", I wasn't using that term properly. I wasn't meaning it in the traditional sense. I was remembering a time when, for example, companies that were defense contractors had much more influence than they have today (although they still have plenty of influence), as compared to people like Bill Gates who wields remarkable influence today.
I'm a great believer in representative politics, as compared to purer democracy. Themost democratic state (through all their petitions and proposals that are put on the ballot) is California. And what a mess it is. Here in Colorado, people moan and groan about two groups of notorious Americans who are among the state's most numerous newcomers -- Texans and Californians. At least in the case of Californians, if you ask them why they left California, it's most often because taxes and the cost of housing went up to the point they couldn't afford to live there...and that's directly related to their purer democracy.
But again, I think you make good points.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm
That isn't my view of society as a whole, but the shoe definitely fits a portion of the population.
And can we (society) drop the whole 1% meme already?
It's not the Buddhist slant of it, but on the Christian side I've heard justification for altruism as, "You can't take it with you to Heaven."
I guess my original point was: do any of us really know anyone who thinks this way (not counting parents, possibly--lol!), or is it more a projection of our minds, based on stereotypes, news articles about corporate greed, etc.? If we accept the corporate view of reality or "society", then we've given up. Think about all your friends and their friends. They don't hold these greed values, do they? And aren't they just as much a part of "society" as corporate CEO's? It's easy to focus on the negative, but if we discount the positive, then in a way we've given in to the negative--we've become part of the problem instead of the solution. If we buy into the inevitability of selfishness & greed, then greed has won.
A friend once told me that everyone wants to be a corporate CEO, and because they can't accomplish it they turn against corporate culture. Sour grapes and all that.
Oh well. :-/