Rebellion vs. confromism

[GoreBag]

Yes, a just purpose.

No, any purpose at all.

[Soulforged]

No, any purpose at all.

Well that's you saying it.

If the rebelion triumphs then it is still worthless, for it will establish itself and then another rebelion will spring up. You cannot end what is not possibly an end, for there is no end to timelessness.

The rebellion is not worthless because it eventually will fail (btw what's that of diciple, a quote from Star Wars ), if that's your phylosphy then why do anything? The rebellion triumph and as long as it's not attacked it keeps it's effectivity. If we always get stucked on what is to come then we loose all sense of what is to be done.

[GoreBag]

Well that's you saying it.

"Just" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. What I say applies to Communists and Macchiavels.

[solypsist]

i love these either/ or threads. as if there are only ever two options in life.

[Soulforged]

i love these either/ or threads. as if there are only ever two options in life.

What will be the middle option then? There are more options (?) but right now we're discussing two of them.

[Papewaio]

Naughty Socrates.

[King Henry V]

i love these either/ or threads. as if there are only ever two options in life.

Sorry, but that's what the French teacher asked for his essay.

[AntiochusIII]

Sorry, but that's what the French teacher asked for his essay.

Therefore, in order to demonstrate yourself as out-of-the-mainstream (rebellious? Could be...could be not...), seek the third option, deliberately so.

It gives you and your work a certain panache. (Homework, I presume?) You will find the entire essay easy to write as you spend most of your time justifying the third (fourth? Or infinity?) way and little in belittling the two original ones.



The analogy would be flying out of the box, rather than burning and redecorating the box or accepting it as it is.

But fly where? That's yours to answer, not mine.

As for the discussion at hand: rebellious is man's nature; he wishes not to be controlled by another of his equal position: being human. It is natural that he would rebel against existing authority, even if superficially or mentally, before carving his place in society. Of course, he himself might return to the flock bruised and battered and decided to conform with it. Advocates of utter conformity intends to break the basic nature of man that, among others, seperates him from rivers and stones.

About a superior being, an overman or a god... that deals with another of man's nature. That includes prophets, of course, since they essentially claims superior authority.

Respect your elders. They may not be smarter, but they are wiser.

I got a lot farther in life doing as I was told, as opposed to some of my friends who bucked authority and ended up poor and cut off from their family, with no hope of schooling or a good job.

It does not surprise me coming from your mouth. Your belief patterns, if contradictory in facts and allegations, or even principles (?), at least display consistency--even historical consistency.

But where are you going?

Back to "the Box?" The cycle is a circle in your opinion, then...some would rebelliously disagree.

Seriously, you've never heard the word 'Macchiavel'?

Do you mean Machiavelli, Italian politician and author of the influential The Prince, or Machiavellian, the system of belief based entirely on the ends and none on the means?

Naughty Socrates.

(From another thread) ah...but he died for his own beliefs, didn't he? Then again, he didn't want to die, according to that testimony marble...

[GoreBag]

Do you mean Machiavelli, Italian politician and author of the influential The Prince, or Machiavellian, the system of belief based entirely on the ends and none on the means?

Closer to the second. A Machiavel (one 'c' or two?) is an adherent of Machiavellianism.

[Soulforged]

"Just" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. What I say applies to Communists and Macchiavels.

That second word is strange to me .
Just is not on the eye of the beholder. Justice is a value that comes from our nature, it's inside us, we always look for justice. Justice only means that certain thing or concept is succesfully adapted to society. For example, if I say that the fraud has become and accepted practice and even a custom, shuold I make it legal, us course not, because it's against morality, now if you want to discuss the subjective value of morality I'm with you. But let's suppose that it's related to a non-criminal activity, marriage for example. Let's say that this community has been celebrating marriages for a very long period of time, with no essencial variation in the process (that constitutes custom), and registering it in the local parrish. In this case it's not an activity against morality, therefore it's acceptable to establish this new custom as the regular legal canon from now on, and wipe out the old, why? Because what makes differenciates the law from morality is that the law (not justice at all, but part of it) has objective rules, one of them is based on the idea of justice, adjustment to society values and practices, as long as they're moral.

[GoreBag]

That second word is strange to me .
Just is not on the eye of the beholder. Justice is a value that comes from our nature, it's inside us, we always look for justice. Justice only means that certain thing or concept is succesfully adapted to society. For example, if I say that the fraud has become and accepted practice and even a custom, shuold I make it legal, us course not, because it's against morality, now if you want to discuss the subjective value of morality I'm with you. But let's suppose that it's related to a non-criminal activity, marriage for example. Let's say that this community has been celebrating marriages for a very long period of time, with no essencial variation in the process (that constitutes custom), and registering it in the local parrish. In this case it's not an activity against morality, therefore it's acceptable to establish this new custom as the regular legal canon from now on, and wipe out the old, why? Because what makes differenciates the law from morality is that the law (not justice at all, but part of it) has objective rules, one of them is based on the idea of justice, adjustment to society values and practices, as long as they're moral.

I disagree. Justice is a creation, like the ideals of perfection, goodness, fairness, and so on. The example of marriage you've provided is particularly ironic to me, in this case, as I'm having some issues with my dislike for monogamy, and how the women I know don't seem to agree with me. But alas, I see no purpose for it, therefore, it must be removed, just or not.

Seriously, you've never heard the word 'Macchiavel'?

[Soulforged]

I disagree. Justice is a creation, like the ideals of perfection, goodness, fairness, and so on. The example of marriage you've provided is particularly ironic to me, in this case, as I'm having some issues with my dislike for monogamy, and how the women I know don't seem to agree with me. But alas, I see no purpose for it, therefore, it must be removed, just or not.

Of course it's a creation, but there's creations that are founded beyond all doubt and constitutes the basis of system (axiological concepts) and those that can change subjectevly. I also have a problem with monogamy, I follow Rouseau.

Seriously, you've never heard the word 'Macchiavel'?

I'm argentinian remember?...Anyway I understood what you were trying to say. "Il Principe" is one of my favuorites readings.

[GoreBag]

Of course it's a creation, but there's creations that are founded beyond all doubt and constitutes the basis of system (axiological concepts) and those that can change subjectevly. I also have a problem with monogamy, I follow Rouseau.

I follow my...uh....'nose'. In any case, I don't think anything is beyond doubt.

[AntiochusIII]

Of course it's a creation, but there's creations that are founded beyond all doubt and constitutes the basis of system (axiological concepts) and those that can change subjectevly. I also have a problem with monogamy, I follow Rouseau.

Gah. I hate Rousseau. Reading him gives me migraine.

I'm argentinian remember?...Anyway I understood what you were trying to say. "Il Principe" is one of my favuorites readings.

However, remember that Machiavelli and Machiavellian are actually rather different. Many scholars argue that Machiavelli himself (the author) is not a Machiavellian; I do not know that in detail, but I believe it's along the lines of examining Machiavelli's later writings--in The Prince, he condemns the "evil dictators," for one. The "Machiavellian" philosophy, on the other hand, justifies whatever means necessary for an achievable goal, even if it's Stalinistic means. In other words the utterly pragmatic point of view.