h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
What is interesting to think about is if there is an evolving into the superman, or if it would be more of a revolution?
Since mind has now defeated matter, an argument could be made that Nietzsches übermensch has now moved into Transhumanist circles.
To give you one example... some billionaires, millionaires and libertarians are now modifying their genes with treatments like minicircle.io.
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
Very interesting. Well, in that case, I was probably inspired by Plato, and just forgot about it, with the slight modification, of bolting on extreme decentralization to that cycle.
But stepping back from the details, I think that cycles does make sense, as long as human beings insist on not evolving their
≠
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
I disagre, softly. It can lead to egalitarianism. The reason is envy. It depends on the individualist community, the size of the community and quality of its participants.
You might remember my theory of the eternal recurrence and cycle. Monarchy->aristocracy->democracy->individualism (the point of ultimate decentralization)->monarchy/aristocracy.
And on and on it goes. The idea is that we moved from scattered
≠
Korsier
≠
≠
≠
⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
Disagree. There is not standard definition, and that is beside the point. When I argue, I do it based on my definition, which I have given, and in light of that, any other definition is irreleveant to the argument.
I disagree with your definition of individualism. In my book, you are talking about egoism, which in severe cases is a psychological illness.
When it comes to limits, there are none in some forms of individualism
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 such as Stirners for instance, or some forms of anarchism.
When it comes to libertarianism, I'd argue that the majority do subscrib to the NAP.
However!
And this is a very important point... the NAP is first of all a result of game theory, which shows that it is the superior strategy for achieving stable social interactions and a prospering society. The NAP is a requirement for markets to work.
The second point is that
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 of positive vs negative rights. As a negative right, the NAP cannot be "imposed". It is just the right to not be attacked.
So there is literally nothing to be imposed, compared with a positive right such as the right to "income" or what ever nonsense the left works with.
Should someone transgress, you are within your right to defend yourself.
I fear that our differring definitions of egoism, individualism and positive and
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 negative rights, as well as how does interact within the framework of libertarianism, is the reason for a lot of misunderstanding.
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 Yes, many definitions exist. I imagine that if you check leftist publications it's similar to "monster" while checking more conservative or libertarian (if any) it drifts closer to "saint". ;)
≠
≠
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
Hmm, maybe we should back up here. I was talking individualism as an ethical theory. I suspect here, maybe we are talking past each other?
≠
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
Ahh... this I remember is another one of our disagreements. On the one hand, it is just a matter of definition, and for me, I stick with the classical philosophical definition.
On the other, I think I never was able to wrap my head around what aesthetics (leaving my definition aside for a moment, for the purpose of understanding another point of view) was, and how it was related
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
Ahh, I see. I think this rests on a misunderstanding of individualism. There is nothing stopping an individual from caring about others, loving others, working with people one does not like in order to realize a greater long term gain etc.
The self at all cost, to the exclusion of everything else, with an intense short term focus, this I call egoism, which is
≠
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 _in_ myself? Then it is easier to tell my emotional state. Or does it reside _outside_ of myself, such as in meetings, presentations, doing business etc. Then it is not always easy to tell what you feel.
Naturally my mental "eye" shifts between the external and internal, back and forth, so you get a bit of both. I believe protracted external focus, over time, is not good for the mental health.
Finally...
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
What do you mean with
"Ironically this is an opposite to individualism, which externalizes the self..."?
Could you elaborate a bit?
≠
h4890
@amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84
Hmm, interesting. At the risk of trying some subjective introspection... Absense of pain, to me, is a fairly neutral state. But to me, this neutral state is vary uncommon, since at any point in time, I have many things going on, or I might think about the nature of the world, myself, our conversations, etc. which does give me certain amounts of pleasure.
There is also the distinction of attention. Does my attention reside
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.