On Medium: How Human Parasites Dupe Us By Running Out Our Clock
Here's an article about how an evolutionary strategy of misdirection unites the frauds of theistic religion and capitalistic exploitation of the masses, by running out our clock.
This reminds of my article on whether cynical intellectuals are parasites (link below). This objection is often bound up with conservatism, in which case the idea is that social pastimes or certain instincts are just presupposed as good, and philosophical doubt is regarded as counterproductive.
There are lots of ways of responding. My overall response is complicated because I don't idolize reason but concede that philosophical thinking can have unintended negative effects. One of my blog's first articles was "The Curse of Reason." I argue against more optimistic new atheists who trust in science and technology, overlooking the downside of modernity.
But of course, I also reject conservative prejudices and especially social Darwinian ones as monstrous and as failing to meet our aesthetic, creative obligations.
The critic would most likely want to say that even the philosopher secretly knows better. We all secretly know we ought to be making a living, finding a mate, and so on. Indeed, most people have certain instincts or are aware of social pressures.
The question is whether we should follow whatever happens naturally (as Taoists might say). This amounts to an appeal to force, not to what's right in any higher sense (unless you assume social Darwinism). Just because society tells you to do something doesn't make it right, because society can be in the wrong, as I argue in my environmentalist and mental health articles such as "Anxiety and the Condemnation of Foolish Societies." We may assume we're doing well if we're fitting into a progressive society, but what if that "progress" is dooming us all in the long run?
Then again, we have to watch out for whether our philosophical doubts are too self-serving. Maybe we're just making excuses for our laziness or our other failures or fears.
It's a big, complicated issue and you can go in different directions with it.
I'm not sure whether those two paths are chosen. There's a variety of people. For example, there are introverts and extroverts, and there are oversensitive individuals and those who feel no shame. There are intellectuals and social butterflies. Some are carefree and reckless while others are prudent workaholics.
So different kinds of people gravitate to different paths. This is why I think Leo Strauss' point--about how the ancients were wiser than the moderns for concealing subversive knowledge rather than broadcasting it openly--was overblown. Even if you state the unvarnished truth openly, not everyone will be interested in hearing it or able to understand it. Only those who are fit to receive special messages tend to receive and to understand them. It's an organic sorting process.
Still, there is a choice to "sell our soul," as it were. This happens when we know better but we succumb to baser pressures and indulge in hack-work, for example. There are good writers who have to choose between artistic and capitalistic standards. They may be ambivalent about it, and in the end their character drives them to take the easier path. They do what's popular but not what's right or what's existentially fulfilling.
I like to think that retirement around the age of 60 was perhaps inspired by the black slaves retirement law in Brazil instituted in the 19th century before the end of slavery.
I mean people work hard in their adult life just so they can only enjoy it at the end of their lives.
Capitalism and conservatism//religion share the same common ancestor, materialism.
The most important thing for both capitalism and religion is not the one that controls the rewards but the rewards themselves.
Capitalism And Religion functions as crossovers between demand and supply.
People don't love God but what, according to mythology, he offers, eternity.
People don't love money but what, according to capitalist mythology, what does it offer,happiness.
It's all a matter of monopoly.
Ignorance of the existential or absolute truths imposed by religion is a way of imitating the same ignorance that prevents non-human animals from knowing that will most likely happen to them when they die.
Because they do not know what is going to happen, they completely believe in what they do because they already live the eternity of natural ignorance by the reality of time.
The same happens with human beings who are more vulnerable to alienation by religious belief.
They need to be inculcated into believing that what they are doing is absolutely valuable. They need to get their minds occupied with everyday activities rather than thinking deeply about reality. The more they think as we do, the more they will repudiate the artificial reality imposed by these psychopaths.
And when religion is replaced by organized ideology such as pseudo-communism, we have the same effect.
Most human beings, eveninthe more advanced societies such as Sweden, are chronically dependent on ideologies, including religions, to adapt to the world intellectually.
They use ideologies like a lame man uses a crutch.
For example, the majority of Swedish people seem to be satisfied with the strategy adopted by their government to deal with the covid-19 pandemic.
I'm talking about one of the most educated countries in the world. This means that most Swedes seem to have underdeveloped scientific knowledge.
Or specifically speaking, if irrationalities always happen when emotional or psychological influence predominates over analytic capacity
I think it's unlikely that most people will see through these exploitative ideologies. The more successful cons are based on human weaknesses, such as greed, gullibility, or desperation. The con artist might look for people who are already down and out or who are careless or uninformed, and he preys on those vulnerabilities.
It's the same with Christianity: the priests prey on the poor, the sick, and the elderly, those who are at their lowest ebb who would be prepared to latch onto any cockamamie scheme of salvation.
If there weren't these prior vulnerabilities, con artists wouldn't have so many opportunities, and we wouldn't have the global, historic, systemic frauds. It's not just a matter of the fraudster's talents. There are human weaknesses that can be exploited.
It's similar to how hackers can now exploit the integration of our digital systems. The globalized system has strengths and weaknesses, and the free-rider can capitalize on the latter.
This reminds of my article on whether cynical intellectuals are parasites (link below). This objection is often bound up with conservatism, in which case the idea is that social pastimes or certain instincts are just presupposed as good, and philosophical doubt is regarded as counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of ways of responding. My overall response is complicated because I don't idolize reason but concede that philosophical thinking can have unintended negative effects. One of my blog's first articles was "The Curse of Reason." I argue against more optimistic new atheists who trust in science and technology, overlooking the downside of modernity.
But of course, I also reject conservative prejudices and especially social Darwinian ones as monstrous and as failing to meet our aesthetic, creative obligations.
The critic would most likely want to say that even the philosopher secretly knows better. We all secretly know we ought to be making a living, finding a mate, and so on. Indeed, most people have certain instincts or are aware of social pressures.
The question is whether we should follow whatever happens naturally (as Taoists might say). This amounts to an appeal to force, not to what's right in any higher sense (unless you assume social Darwinism). Just because society tells you to do something doesn't make it right, because society can be in the wrong, as I argue in my environmentalist and mental health articles such as "Anxiety and the Condemnation of Foolish Societies." We may assume we're doing well if we're fitting into a progressive society, but what if that "progress" is dooming us all in the long run?
Then again, we have to watch out for whether our philosophical doubts are too self-serving. Maybe we're just making excuses for our laziness or our other failures or fears.
It's a big, complicated issue and you can go in different directions with it.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2019/06/are-cynical-intellectuals-parasites.html
https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/anxiety-and-the-condemnation-of-foolish-societies-2d8ca41e7705?sk=de9511d4c752e2cb793547badb76a799
I'm not sure whether those two paths are chosen. There's a variety of people. For example, there are introverts and extroverts, and there are oversensitive individuals and those who feel no shame. There are intellectuals and social butterflies. Some are carefree and reckless while others are prudent workaholics.
ReplyDeleteSo different kinds of people gravitate to different paths. This is why I think Leo Strauss' point--about how the ancients were wiser than the moderns for concealing subversive knowledge rather than broadcasting it openly--was overblown. Even if you state the unvarnished truth openly, not everyone will be interested in hearing it or able to understand it. Only those who are fit to receive special messages tend to receive and to understand them. It's an organic sorting process.
Still, there is a choice to "sell our soul," as it were. This happens when we know better but we succumb to baser pressures and indulge in hack-work, for example. There are good writers who have to choose between artistic and capitalistic standards. They may be ambivalent about it, and in the end their character drives them to take the easier path. They do what's popular but not what's right or what's existentially fulfilling.
Hi, I'm here again.
ReplyDeleteI like to think that retirement around the age of 60 was perhaps inspired by the black slaves retirement law in Brazil instituted in the 19th century before the end of slavery.
I mean people work hard in their adult life just so they can only enjoy it at the end of their lives.
Capitalism and conservatism//religion share the same common ancestor, materialism.
The most important thing for both capitalism and religion is not the one that controls the rewards but the rewards themselves.
Capitalism And Religion functions as crossovers between demand and supply.
People don't love God but what, according to mythology, he offers, eternity.
People don't love money but what, according to capitalist mythology, what does it offer,happiness.
It's all a matter of monopoly.
Ignorance of the existential or absolute truths imposed by religion is a way of imitating the same ignorance that prevents non-human animals from knowing that will most likely happen to them when they die.
Because they do not know what is going to happen, they completely believe in what they do because they already live the eternity of natural ignorance by the reality of time.
The same happens with human beings who are more vulnerable to alienation by religious belief.
They need to be inculcated into believing that what they are doing is absolutely valuable.
They need to get their minds occupied with everyday activities rather than thinking deeply about reality.
The more they think as we do, the more they will repudiate the artificial reality imposed by these psychopaths.
And when religion is replaced by organized ideology such as pseudo-communism, we have the same effect.
Most human beings, eveninthe more advanced societies such as Sweden, are chronically dependent on ideologies, including religions, to adapt to the world intellectually.
They use ideologies like a lame man uses a crutch.
For example, the majority of Swedish people seem to be satisfied with the strategy adopted by their government to deal with the covid-19 pandemic.
I'm talking about one of the most educated countries in the world.
This means that most Swedes seem to have underdeveloped scientific knowledge.
Or specifically speaking, if irrationalities always happen when emotional or psychological influence predominates over analytic capacity
I think it's unlikely that most people will see through these exploitative ideologies. The more successful cons are based on human weaknesses, such as greed, gullibility, or desperation. The con artist might look for people who are already down and out or who are careless or uninformed, and he preys on those vulnerabilities.
DeleteIt's the same with Christianity: the priests prey on the poor, the sick, and the elderly, those who are at their lowest ebb who would be prepared to latch onto any cockamamie scheme of salvation.
If there weren't these prior vulnerabilities, con artists wouldn't have so many opportunities, and we wouldn't have the global, historic, systemic frauds. It's not just a matter of the fraudster's talents. There are human weaknesses that can be exploited.
It's similar to how hackers can now exploit the integration of our digital systems. The globalized system has strengths and weaknesses, and the free-rider can capitalize on the latter.