Posts by frozenotter232

Edward Flores4 said:Go ahead—rely entirely on people’s sense of civic duty and moral responsibility if you want to. Just wait and see how many folks suddenly decide to act like saints the moment they realize they can pocket an extra hundred bucks by being irresponsible toward you. It’s funny how quickly "integrity" disappears when there's a quick buck to be made, right? Seriously, though, let me know how that works out for you. 😉

Quincey:

I’m going to say it again—just to be crystal clear: if the decision-making process was actually fair, you know, in terms of having true political equality...

What’s actually fair about a "majority" decision when you have 51 people voting to screw over the other 49? Where is the equality in that? 🤷

Quincey:

Look, I get it—it’s an undeniable reality that in any major democracy, you’re always going to have some dissatisfied minority groups pulling at the edges. It's almost baked into the system, isn't it? Whether it's political disagreements or social friction, there will always be a segment of the population feeling like the scales aren't tipping their way. It’s just part of the landscape when you're running a massive, diverse country like ours.

Since most people tend to rush headlong into things without much thought, I honestly think majority rule is pretty much destined to drag everyone’s quality of life down to a mediocre, one-size-fits-all baseline. If that’s really what you consider to be "justice" or "equality"—this idea that we should all just settle for the lowest common denominator—then hey, congratulations. You got exactly what you asked for. 😉

Quincey:

If you can't find a solid angle to support political equality, then I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say—it’s a tough one. At the end of the day, people are just wired differently. You have some folks who are totally open to that kind of reasoning, while others—well, they just aren't going to see it that way, no matter how much you explain it. It really comes down to individual perspective.

What kind of argument is that? I didn't see you actually making any points about political equality anywhere in there—I mean, honestly. You can't just point to a law and call it an argument, right? That’s not how this works. ☕

Quincey:

To put it more accurately—I’m not exactly head over heels for representative democracy, but I do find myself nodding along to that old Churchill thesis about it being the least bad system we've got.

Look, even if this is the least terrible option I’ve come across so far, let’s not mistake "less bad" for "actually good." There’s a massive difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and finding something that actually works. The thing about stagnation is that it just isn't part of the universe's design—it's fundamentally against the laws of nature. Everything that stops moving, everything that stays static, eventually just withers away and dies. It’s an absolute certainty. And honestly? If we apply that same logic to our democracy, it’s pretty clear where we're headed if we don't find a way to keep things evolving. If we stop progressing, we start fading out.

Quincey:

Look, if you’re looking at this through a strictly democratic lens, "results" and "efficiency" aren't really the make-or-all metrics they seem to be—not even close. It isn't some sort of pass-or-fail exam where a democracy succeeds or crashes based solely on how fast or how smoothly things get done.

One day, it’s going to click for you. Democracy is really just this abstract idea—it's a concept you can't actually wrap your hands around, let alone sit down and eat or drink. But results? Well, those are a different story entirely. Results show up in much more tangible ways—they're things you can actually taste and feel in your everyday life.

Quincey:

That sounds more like practical expediency than an actual justification.

Honestly, calling something "practical expediency" is often just a polite way of describing laziness, irresponsibility, and pure selfishness.

Quincey:

Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the most just approach is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any one group—not even the highly intelligent, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic legitimacy for themselves.

So, what—is it better to let fools run the show?

Go ahead, build a massive corporation like Apple or Ford, and then hire someone completely incompetent as the CEO—just so you don't monopolize power among the smart people—and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I have a feeling that if you were actually in that position, you wouldn't be nearly as eager to hand over the reins to someone less capable, which makes your stance feel a little hypocritical to me. It’s easy to play the moral high ground when you aren't the one holding the bag. 🙄

Quincey:

The alternative isn't a pluralistic vote based on intelligence; it's the total rejection of the entire structure—essentially, discarding any political system whatsoever.

I can get behind that, though it's arguably harder to pull off than anything we've discussed so far, even if it is the most likely outcome. That shift only happens once the current system finally collapses under its own weight. And honestly? The sooner, the better.

Quincey:

And saying "not one single" instance is simply inaccurate.

Do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Quincey:

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith—like you find in religion—but rather that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief, meaning it has the potential to become actual knowledge.

The second concrete knowledge exists, clinging to an unproven hypothesis becomes nothing more than an "alternative religion."☕

Quincey:

That is why it is vital for democracy to be liberal—meaning constrained by a constitution—which is exactly what this gentleman was so passionately advocating for.

Democracy, much like Christianity, has never truly been put to the test.
STUART CHASE

I haven't had issues with most people so far. Kuc-kuc

How is it fair for a "majority" decision of 51 people to screw over the other 49? Where's the equality in that? 🤷

Sure, the criminal code exists to penalize criminals; anti-discrimination laws exist to protect against bias; labor laws protect employees from bosses who'd rather strip them of all rights; traffic laws target those who drive recklessly... There are all kinds of "minorities," not just the "benign" ones that simply offer a different perspective on the common good. It isn't that simple. However, the real issue arises when a political decision fails to account for these other minority interests (though a minority can always try to lobby later to regain the majority).

Look, if there's a political community where decisions have to be made, and total consensus is basically impossible, then the majority rule among equals is the only realistic option left. It's a known flaw, which is why the system isn't perfect. That said, the Constitution ensures that authority isn't absolute and can't just meddle in everything. Even when minority interests are frustrated, their fundamental rights remain protected.

What's the argument? I didn't see you actually argue for political equality anywhere. You don't honestly think a law counts as an argument, do you? ☕

The argument is this: political decisions bind all citizens equally (regardless of IQ or any other trait), which is why we have the principle of equal and universal suffrage.

Even if it's the least bad option tried so far, it doesn't mean it's the best possible one. Stagnation isn't part of the universe's design—anything that stagnates dies. Eventually, that fate will catch up to democracy too.

Fine. We'll see.

So it's better to let fools hold power?

Start a successful company, hire an idiot as CEO just to prove that power shouldn't be exclusive to the smart people, and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I suspect you’d be just as willing to hand over power to idiots in that scenario, which makes your stance pretty hypocritical. It’s easy to talk big when you aren't the one holding the bag 🙄

The analogy doesn't work. My company is my private property; I have the exclusive right to hire whoever I want. But the political community and the government aren't my private property—they belong to everyone. You can't run the government like it's your own small business or a private club. The rules in politics are fundamentally different from the rules in the private sector. Sure, personally, I'd prefer to see intelligent, competent people in power, but my ability to decide that shouldn't be any greater or smaller than any other citizen's. This isn't about surrendering power.

So, do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Well, there have been plenty who entered politics with a genuine concept of the common good, rather than just chasing power. On a global scale, I think of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela... Locally, we've had figures like Abraham Lincoln or maybe some modern activists...
Or various unknown activists in local movements and grassroots initiatives, etc.

When concrete facts exist, believing in an unproven hypothesis is nothing more than a "fringe religion." ☕

I'm far too familiar with how complex social, economic, and political phenomena are to just take a hypothesis from some "study" in a link and accept it as absolute fact instead of what it actually is: just another hypothesis.

Democracy, as has been said of Christianity, has never really been tried.
STUART CHASE

Fine then, maybe we should actually try it out and see if the universe approves or not. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:If you look back at what was said above, you'll realize I was really just answering a hypothetical question about what a "more efficient" political structure might look like compared to our current one.

Beyond that—and this is my main point—the issue isn't actually designing a better system; the real hurdle is whether people are even willing to trade our current system of total unaccountability for one where they’d actually be held responsible for their own actions within their means.

See, you can demand accountability from someone who lacks the capacity for it—you can even try to bake penalties for irresponsibility into the law—but a fool is never going to be truly accountable. If you don't see that, and you keep pushing for responsibility from someone incapable of providing it... well, then you're arguably being even more foolish than they are. Responsibility is a product of an individual's intellectual capacity, not something that can be conjured up by your "demands" or through some legal sanction against those who refuse to comply.

Laws are, in many ways, just a written admission that we failed to solve a problem. When we run into a problem we don't know how to fix, we write a law to physically suppress the symptoms. A law isn't a solution—it just adds another layer of complexity to the original mess.

Honestly, maybe a system like that could be slipped past the public since most people are either mediocre or just plain dim.

Unfortunately, the statistics don't support your optimism. Most Americans sit right on that razor-thin line between being functional and being completely incapable—the average American IQ is hovering around 89. Just to give you some perspective, here's how those brackets break down:

IQ below 75 - extremely difficult to train and simply aren't competitive for any career path based on skill alone.

People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to end up in the justice system, and five times more likely to struggle with poverty as adults compared to those with IQs between 110 and 125.

Those with an average IQ (between 90 and 100) aren't competitive for high-level professional or executive roles, but they can be easily trained for the majority of jobs in the workforce.

The top 5 percent (those above 120) of the adult population are largely self-sufficient learners; there are very few mental hurdles that can stop them from mastering a profession.

As you can see, collectively, we fall into that high-risk group that can basically only be trained for very basic, repetitive tasks.

The gap between an 89 and a 109 IQ is ASTRONOMICAL.

But an individual isn't forced to drive a car or work for a corporation that requires psych testing, so they aren't obligated to undergo any assessment that might result in negative consequences for them. However, political decisions—laws, for instance—bind everyone regardless of whether they like it or not, under the threat of force. These laws apply equally to the fools, the average citizens, and the intellectuals alike. That's why it's fair for all their votes to carry equal weight.

But where’s the fairness in any of this? In the fact that I—and everyone else who actually contributes—have to shoulder the consequences of decisions made by people who have no clue what they're doing? It’s pretty simple, really: intelligence and actual skill drive progress and profit, whereas sheer incompetence just acts as a massive anchor dragging everything down. So, naturally, the "smart" people end up footing the bill for the misguided policies of the "uninformed," all because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of absolute equality—where a fool's vote carries the exact same weight as an expert's.

Where exactly do you see any sense of justice in that?

What we have here is a representative democracy—though, let's be honest, it's one plagued by a lack of political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with plenty of other well-known flaws.

You can try to dress it up with fancy terms if you want... but changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we are living under a system defined by incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, cronyism, and outright injustice. You might be able to describe it as something somewhat acceptable or even "normal" simply because you have the literacy and education to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

A more truly democratic system would be a direct democracy where everyone holds a single vote. A pluralistic voting system definitely falls outside the bounds of true democracy and the current zeitgeista, especially when it's based on innate traits like IQ.

Personally, I care about results, fairness, accountability, and freedom. Whether that comes through a democracy, communism, or anarchy... well, I don't give a shit!

We need tangible results, not ideologies or empty rhetoric built on pure capitalist utopias and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

Those who want to engage in politics without letting politics take over their lives.

Oh, I just love those kinds of "justifications." 🙄
Anyone who enters the political arena does so because they want power. Period. Even if someone claims they want power just to implement something "good," they are essentially forcing their specific vision of "good" onto everyone else—and that is precisely how history's greatest tyrants began.

Or those for whom politics is just one aspect of a well-lived life.

Sure... wanting the rewards of leadership without doing the dirty work is the dream of every ambitious incompetent out there. Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to land those positions. History is littered with thousands of them, and I haven't met a single one who was actually different. Think about that. 😉

Or those who advocate for political equality for what they believe are moral reasons.

So, is it considered "moral" to lie to a fool by pretending they are just as intelligent as anyone else?

Or is it that fools demand political equality just so they can use quasi-moral concepts of "fairness" to compensate for their own intellectual shortcomings?

On top of all that...
Having the right to speak up doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

There’s definitely a link between how democratic a system is and its level of material prosperity—but personally, I’m convinced there’s something much deeper going on than just a simple correlation.

The real kicker is FAITH. If you look at the data, scientific studies show a clear connection between IQ levels and GDP, though of course you have to account for those standard deviations along the "Bell Curve." Honestly, if you want to dive into the numbers, check it out HERE.

Democracy is essentially a matter of faith. For some folks, it’s practically the only formal religion they practice. It’s built on that recurring hunch that more than half of the population might actually be right more than half of the time.
E. B. WHITE

And finally:

A democracy is really just nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the crowd can vote to strip away the rights of the remaining forty-nine.
THOMAS JEFFERSON

This feels overblown and way too pessimistic to me, even if it fits into the first category. 😁

Quincy:

And where is the fairness in that? In the fact that I HAVE to suffer the consequences of their decisions? The reality is that profit is driven by intellect and skill, while stupidity and incompetence just drag everything down. It’s obvious that the "smart" people end up paying a heavy price for the political choices made by the "dumb," simply because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of equality where an idiot's vote carries the same weight as an intellectual's. Where exactly do you see any fairness in that?

I'll say it again: if the decision-making process was fair in terms of political equality, then the decision itself is legitimate. Though, let's be real, in a majoritarian democracy, there are always going to be dissatisfied minorities.

If you don't buy the argument for political equality, I don't know what else to tell you. People are different: some accept that premise, others don't.

Quincy:

You can call it "interstellar temporal democracy" for all I care... changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we live under a rule of incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, nepotism, and injustice—which you, thanks to your literacy and education, are able to describe as something quasi-acceptable, expected, normal, and promising.

To put it more accurately: I'm not fond of representative democracy, but I do agree with that Churchillian thesis about it being the least bad system.

Quincy:

We need results, not ideologies and demagoguery built on pure capitalist utopia and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

From a democratic perspective, "results" and "efficiency" aren't the deciding factors. That isn't the metric by which a democracy passes or fails.

Quincy:

I love these "justifications." 🙄 Anyone involved in politics does it because they want power. Even if someone wants power just to do good, they’re still forcing their own version of "good" onto everyone else. That’s exactly how the world's greatest tyrants get their start.

That sounds more like practical pragmatism than an actual justification.
Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the fairest way to handle it is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any single group—not even the smartest ones, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic right to rule.
The alternative isn't voting based on IQ; it's throwing the whole system out the window entirely.

Sure... wanting a free ride without doing any work is every incompetent climber's dream, and plenty of people will do anything to reach that level. History is full of them, and NOT A SINGLE one was ever different. think about that It will be that policy 😉

That isn't politics. That's just playing games.
And saying "not a single one" is just plain wrong.

So, is it considered moral to pretend you think a fool is your intellectual equal?

No, that's pointless.

Or do fools demand political equality just to offset their intellectual deficit with some quasi-moral concept of fairness?

They would only be able to demand that if political power were strictly reserved for the most intelligent first.

Besides...
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

Obvious. Just like I don't take your opinion on the quasi-morality of political equality seriously, even though you have the democratic right to hold it. 😁

The key word is FAITH, because scientific studies show a correlation between IQ and GDP, aside from the expected deviations in the bell curve.

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith like in a religion; I meant that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief—something that could actually become knowledge.

Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have. It is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.E. B. WHITE

And finally:

"Democracy is basically just mob rule—a system where 51% of the crowd can strip away the rights of the other 49%."
THOMAS JEFFERSON

That’s exactly why it's vital for a democracy to be liberal—meaning its power is strictly checked by a constitution, which is something this second gentleman fought tooth and nail for.

Edward Flores4 said:Now, I know I’m getting a bit too deep into the weeds here—and frankly, it might be a moot point right now—but there actually are solutions for this. See, voters don't really *know* the true weight of their vote. And it's not just about "ego"—because let's be honest, refusing to admit you're uninformed isn't self-respect, it's just arrogance and ignorance—it's also because we don't want to give voters a reason to belittle one another, or give politicians a direct line to run targeted propaganda against specific groups.

It's kind of like how you don't get handed your IQ score or a psychological profile during a routine physical for a driver's license, or when you're going through the hiring process at a place like Google or JPMorgan Chase.

The concept isn't some radical new idea, either; it's been used successfully in all sorts of other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

Quinn:

Besides, doing that would violate one of the most fundamental democratic principles—"one person, one vote." So, it wouldn't be a democracy.

Even what we have right now isn't truly a democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a tiny handful of those votes decide the direction for the next four years until the next election cycle. So, no matter how you slice it... this proposed idea would actually be more democratic than any existing version of democracy we've seen.

Quinn:

Exactly, that's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people can't stand it.

I don't quite get why everyone gets so hung up on that big word, "democracy." It feels like people act as if the label matters more than the actual mechanics of governance and control. What really matters is the results the system produces—and right now, the results are a disaster. Honestly, who cares about the "sanctity of democracy"... unless you're living off the benefits it provides.

What you actually need is a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for the work you do. You can't eat democracy, and you certainly can't use it to wipe your backside—unless you write the word on a piece of paper... and even then, it won't do much good. 🙂

I don't see how a lack of transparency in this system would appeal to citizens. Nor do I see why they'd agree to an electoral system where their vote potentially carries less weight.
(Though, maybe they could be talked into it since most people are just average or mediocre. 🤣 )

Quinn:

Just like you don't get your Intel scores or psych eval results during a standard physical for a driver's license, or when you're getting hired by a firm that requires testing. The concept isn't new; it's been successfully used in various other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

But an individual isn't forced to drive or work for a company that demands psych testing, so they aren't obligated to take a test that might yield negative consequences for them. However, political decisions, like laws, bind you whether you like it or not—under threat of force. And those laws apply to the idiots, the average people, and the geniuses alike. That’s why it’s fair for everyone's votes to carry equal weight.

Quinn:

What we have now isn't even democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a handful of people get to decide things for the next four until the next "election."

What we have is representative democracy (with a poorly developed political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with other well-known flaws).

Quinn:

So, no matter how you slice it... this would be more democratic than any current version of democracy.

Direct democracy would be more democratic, where everyone simply has one vote. A plural vote definitely falls outside the bounds of democracy and the current zeitgeist, especially when it's based on innate traits like Intel.

Quinn:

I don't get why everyone is obsessing over the word "democracy." It shouldn't matter what you call the system or what the specific mechanism of control is. What matters is the outcome, and right now, the outcomes are a disaster.

That really depends on which country you're looking at.

Quinn:

Who actually gives a damn about democracy...

Maybe people who want to engage in politics without being crushed by it.
Or those who just see political involvement as one part of a decent life.
Or maybe folks advocating for equality because they actually have a conscience.
There are plenty of reasons. 🤷

Quinn:

You need a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for your labor. You can't eat democracy, and unless you write the word down on a piece of paper to trade it, it won't do you any good either. 🙂

There's definitely a correlation between democratic systems and material prosperity, but I'm convinced there’s more to it than just a coincidence.

Edward Flores4 said:I think you might be taking things a bit too far there... personally, I feel like any vote from someone with an IQ over 120 should carry equal weight. Most political and economic issues aren't exactly rocket science or quantum physics... I really don't see how a person with an IQ of 140 holds a significant advantage over someone with an IQ of 120 in those arenas.

The real issue lies with people whose IQ is below 90—for them, almost everything besides tying their shoes is rocket science, and they make up a pretty large chunk of the general American population.

If we were being honest, ballots should be designed in a way that prevents illiterate or semi-literate individuals from filling them out correctly. When you look at it realistically, people who struggle with basic literacy are informationally disadvantaged; they simply don't have the foundation needed to make informed decisions. Just implementing a selection process based on literacy alone would be a massive leap forward.

We could take correctly filled ballots and sort them into three IQ categories: below 100 (below average), 100 to 120, and over 120. A vote from the below-average group would count as 1, the average group as 2, and the above-average group as 4. We should also track the results separately so we can see exactly which groups are represented by which outcomes.

Of course, voters who refuse to take the test would be removed from the voter rolls. This would likely cause a good number of the illiterate, uninterested, or intellectually underserved folks to opt out of testing entirely, effectively lightening the load on the election by removing their own handicap.

This would fundamentally change how pre-election campaigns work. It’s very possible that voters who are easily swayed by free sausages, cheap wine, Taylor Swift, or other campaign gimmicks wouldn't actually get a say—either because they won't show up for testing or because they can't manage to fill out the ballot properly. Most of those voices would end up stuck in that below-average category.

Political campaigns would turn into something resembling a "double-blind" study. Politicians wouldn't be able to afford to ignore relevant questions, marginalize experts, or try to buy off the masses with free food, patriotic rhetoric, roadside rallies, or concerts by pop stars.

I believe this would dramatically shift the landscape regardless of the actual voting outcome. A significant number of current politicians would suddenly realize that cheap handouts, backyard BBQs, and Taylor Swift aren't adequate tools for reaching the "average" or "above-average" demographics, and that they'd essentially be unable to play politics anymore.

In other words, changing the criteria itself would change the supply side of the equation. Very few candidates would dare to risk running a campaign targeting "below-average" voters if they knew they wouldn't gain anything—or would gain next to nothing—from the other categories.

So, IQ could be one component, but certainly not the only one. What else is there?
And should every single person have the same weight when voting on any given issue?

Given everything I just laid out, I’m honestly convinced that if we simply prioritized literacy and IQ- 140 during the selection process, we would see MASSIVE results almost immediately.

How exactly would you pull off a reform like that? I highly doubt the average or below-average people—who make up the vast majority—would ever agree to a weighted voting system. Their ego wouldn't allow it. Clearly, a reform like this couldn't happen through democratic means.

Besides, it would violate one of the core democratic principles: "one person, one vote." By definition, that wouldn't be a democracy.

It’s insane that to drive a car, you need a medical exam, a basic IQ and psych test, theoretical and practical training, plus a board exam...
...but when it comes to deciding the fate and politics of the country, there isn't even a requirement to be literate.🙄

If the paperwork and procedure for a driver's license works... I don't see why a much simpler, yet infinitely more important, voting procedure wouldn't work too. 🤷

We obviously don't want idiots behind the wheel, but we're fine with idiots deciding national policy!?

Exactly. That's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people hate it.

steelridge58 said:It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

The term "rule by the people" implies a citizenry that is politically informed, rather than just an ethnic group. You could argue that direct democracy is a system where the rulers and the ruled are one and the same. Of course, that’s only actually doable in small communities. For almost every major nation out there, representative democracy is really the "second best" option we have to work with.

Some people argue this isn't just a "second best" option—they think it’s actually the superior way to go. If I recall correctly, John Stuart Mill advocated for representative government not just because of population size, but because he believed most people aren't equipped to govern; they're only capable of picking those who are. So, according to some, representative democracy might actually beat direct democracy because it carries that certain aristocratic, meritocratic edge.

I’ve combed through plenty of definitions of democracy, but one really sticks out to me: the idea that democracy isn't a one-size-fits-all model. In any given era, it presents a unique challenge tailored specifically to the people involved. Since the citizens are the ones pulling the strings and choosing their leaders, they also have to own the consequences. If you vote for a certain government by majority rule, you're stuck with the responsibility of living under the leadership you picked.

Interesting definition.

Even if we wanted to, could they actually answer whether democracy even exists in the US?
...
It’s not about whether a country is technically a democracy anymore. It doesn't matter if the system is built on the principle of free speech or popular vote. The real question is whether democratic values actually exist there—and if anyone is bothered to respect them—even when the formal structure says they should.

That’s right. In America, we have a representative democracy, but our political culture is still pretty shallow.

You could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

You can define democracy as a community built on one core principle: recognizing human dignity as the ultimate value. Its whole purpose is to guarantee every citizen the freedom to develop their own personality and take responsibility for their own lives. It’s about creating the social conditions that actually make that kind of autonomy possible.

You don't actually need democracy for this; you just need liberalism. Personal dignity and individual freedom can exist within an enlightened constitutional monarchy, too. Sure, the safeguards for those rights might be a bit shakier since you're largely relying on the temperament of the monarch, but it's doable. That said, you could argue that the "social conditions" required for these values are likely better secured when people get a say in their own political system. At the end of the day, it’s better for people to be citizens rather than just subjects.

Democracy only works if we all agree that we’re equals on some fundamental, moral level. That’s what eventually turns into political equality. Nobody has some natural or divine "right" to rule over anyone else. In this system, everyone is essentially a king. Sure, some people are smarter, more educated, braver, or more driven than others—but that doesn't mean they're born to rule. It's not like Plato's worldview, where he argued that people are fundamentally unequal from the start.

So how do you actually establish political authority within a community of equals? Democracy is basically the only way that works.

(Even an aristocratic setup has a democratic component: the aristocrats act as a club of equals who vote on political matters. It’s just that their definition of "equals"—or "the people"—conveniently excludes everyone from peasants and slaves to women.)

Bottom line: in any society where people are fundamentally equal, democracy is the only viable formula.

Is there any hope, then?

It's not impossible.

swiftcobra15 said:By saying that, you’re just dodging the actual question. ("Let's say Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty.")
The reality is that they committed nothing but evil. It’s like the old saying goes: one wrong is simply replaced by something far worse.

Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.

Why take such a narrow view? Is it really impossible to turn an enemy into a friend?
Or at least someone who won't cause you harm. Why should destruction be the only way out? 😕

I'm sticking to my answer. Take it or leave it. 😉

swiftcobra15 said:By saying that, you’re just dodging the actual question. ("Let's say Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty.")
The reality is that they committed nothing but evil. It’s like the old saying goes: one wrong is simply replaced by something far worse.

Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.

Why take such a narrow view? Is it really impossible to turn an enemy into a friend?
Or at least someone who won't cause you harm. Why should destruction be the only way out? 😕

It isn't the only way. That's why I used the word 'neutralizing.'
As for this "narrow-mindedness" and turning enemies into friends—I'm not so sure. Look at a real ideological conflict: liberals versus fascists.

Liberals stand for things like human dignity, untouchable individual rights, checks and balances on government power, the freedom to seek truth, and free speech. Fascists, on the other hand, don't just hold different views; they champion values that are the direct opposite of liberal ones. These are two political worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible. It’s not just theoretical; it plays out practically because their visions for how a society should function are mutually exclusive. There's no room for both. If they exist in the same country, one side inevitably ends up operating outside the law.

So, can you imagine liberals and fascists becoming friends? Could a liberal turn a fascist into a buddy, or vice versa? Maybe, if one of them converts first. But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether they can be friends while remaining true to themselves. In my view, that's impossible.

Reading your posts, I've gathered that you belong to the 'anti-fascist camp.' Would you ever actually be friends with a fascist?

(Fine, I went off-topic, but that's on you. 😛)

swiftcobra15 said:

Let’s assume for a moment that Saddam is undeniably guilty—that he committed atrocities—and we stop debating his crimes altogether.

The real question remains: did those who removed him actually do good or evil?

Can violence truly be used to achieve a righteous end? Is it ever "good" to destroy an enemy?

Removing a brutal dictator is fine in theory, BUT...

it turns out everything in Iraq went downhill fast after the coalition intervention. So, looking at the fallout, they didn't do any good.
And they didn't do good based on their methods or goals either. Their approach was hypocritical and deceptive, while their actual objectives were purely self-serving. 😁

Is it "good" to destroy an enemy?

I'd say it's a necessity rather than a "good" thing. An enemy denies your very existence and your core values at the most fundamental level. What else can you do besides try to crush them or at least neutralize the threat?🤷

Besides, the war in Iraq wasn't about a real enemy. It was a manufactured conflict used to justify seizing a region that was strategically and economically vital.

I have more thoughts on the concept of enmity, but I'll stop there before I go too far off-topic.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:The author argues that those positioned at the source of information—the so-called intellectual elite—possess the exact same capacity to predict "black swan" events or the future as the general public.

The only distinction is that these elite thinkers operate under the delusion that they can actually predict anything, whereas the average person at least understands their own limitations.

For instance, apparently, not a single expert in international relations saw the collapse of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc coming.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:I am currently reading *The Black Swan*, and I find it difficult to shake the impression that there is an immense amount of truth packed into these pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

To put it succinctly, rare and entirely unpredictable events—the kind no one could possibly anticipate even in their wildest dreams—exert the most significant influence on the trajectory of human history.

The term "Black Swan" serves as a metaphor for something fundamentally contrary to expectation and impossible to foresee.
Essentially, prior to the discovery of Australia, the world believed only white swans existed; they were the universal symbol of whiteness, and it never occurred to anyone that a black swan could actually exist.

It seems logical to me that unpredictable events are what actually drive the evolution of a society, or even humanity as a whole. If you can see a shift coming, people prepare for it. They brace themselves, which softens the blow and essentially absorbs any revolutionary energy before it can even spark.

James Lee77 said:Žižek says:

Every once in a while—totally out of nowhere, totally unpredictable, and completely outside what we can actually perceive about the struggle [you know, about what’s actually happening and how things really are, the actual State of Affairs]—this Event happens. It's like it belongs to a whole different dimension.
Take late 18th-century society in France, for example: you could study the social classes, the economic clashes, the political beef, etc.—all of that is stuff we can actually wrap our heads around. But no matter how much data you collect, you'll never be able to predict or explain the truly unexplainable event called the ''French Revolution''. That's just how an Event works; it shows up ex nihilo...

To go deeper: the Event

Here's the kicker: if anyone looks at a bunch of random ''facts'' from a specific moment in history and sees them as One single Event, they're actually participating in that Event. Like, for the French aristocracy back then, what we now call the French Revolution was probably just seen as ''just another little riot...'' But honestly, everyone who decided to see it as something New—something that breaks the old status quo—became part of that Event just by doing that. If a critical mass of people hadn't realized it was this Totally New thing, this Event, then nothing new would have actually happened.
History is basically made by the people who believe in it. 🤷

It's kind of the same with 9/11: if enough people decide it's an Event that fundamentally reshapes global relationships, then it actually becomes one. On the flip side, if most people just write it off as another media circus staged by imperialist leaders, then it isn't an Event; it's just more of the same.

The big takeaway from postmodern politics is this idea that there are no Events—that ''nothing actually happens,'' that the truth event is just some fleeting, illusory glitch, a fake identification that eventually fades away when things settle back to normal, or at best, a passing promise of redemption that we should stay far away from to avoid those scary ''totalitarian'' vibes. But against all that structural skepticism, Badiou is totally right to insist that—using his term in its full theological weight—a miracle occurs...
So, I guess you can see why a truth event is ''undecidable'': from the perspective of the System, or the ontological ''state of affairs,'' it's undecidable. ...You can only identify it from the standpoint of what Badiou calls an ''explanatory intervention''—basically, if you speak from a position of subjective engagement. Or, to put it more formally, if the act of naming the situation is actually part of the situation itself. Those chaotic happenings in late 18th-century France can only be identified as the ''French Revolution'' by the people who are willing to take the ''bet'' that such an Event exists. Badiou formally defines an intervention as ''any action where a multiplicity is recognized as one event''—so, ''it will always remain uncertain whether there was even an event, except for the intervenor [l'intervenant] who decided to commit to the situation.''

🤷

Yeah, critical mass. Who knows how many potential Truth Events have already slipped through our fingers just because they lacked that tipping point? We’ll never know, since they never actually happened. 🤔 😁

Slavoj Žižek:
Quincy Jones:

Now we can actually see why the Truth Event is considered "undecidable." From the perspective of the System—that ontological "state of affairs"—it’s impossible to pin down. You can only identify it through what Alain Badiou calls an "interpretive intervention." In plain English: you have to speak from a position of subjective commitment. Or, more formally, you have to actually step into the situation and perform the act of naming it. Take the chaotic upheavals in France during the late 18th century. Those events only get labeled the "French Revolution" if you're willing to take the bet that such a Truth Event actually occurred. Badiou defines intervention as any process where... Plurality is being mistaken for unity. The Truth Event—so that it will forever remain doubtful whether such an event actually took place, except for those who support the intervention...The speaker."...who decided to just own his situation."

There might be some truth to this, but if these interveners want their "Truth Event" to actually count as historical, the fallout needs to be massive and impossible to ignore. For an event to truly make history, people outside the inner circle have to recognize it—even if they hate doing so—precisely because the consequences are so undeniable. If there’s no visible impact, you aren't making history; you're either just rewriting the past or suffering from some kind of collective historical autism. Or maybe it's something else entirely.
(though you could argue that acknowledging the fallout of the Truth Event is basically just a 'interpretive intervention' in itself).

Congrats, steelridge58, and props to the mods for making a solid call here.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:Humans exploit everything: other people, different species, the entire planet...
We’re inherently selfish, and even when we try to be selfless, it’s usually just a thinly veiled way to feed our own egos.
Humanity is the root cause of ecological imbalance; we're the only species actively fighting against the very system we belong to...

And then you have the complete opposite:
"Man is a noble creature, the measure of all things," and so on and so forth.

I’ve been feeling a bit lost lately navigating the constant contradictions in how we judge our own species. I see so many posts on this forum where the tone is heavy with disappointment and condemnation, even when people are trying their hardest to sound objective... and I can't help but wonder why.

It feels like there are really only two ways to look at this:

1) Humans are simply part of nature—which means we aren't inherently "good" or "bad," we're just biological facts. Everything we do happens because the environment we inhabit allows us to do it, so the evolution of our species—including all those messy mistakes we make while learning—is still just evolution, not some kind of cosmic destruction.

2) Humans are not part of nature—we've broken away, warped ourselves, and now we're just a burden to ourselves and everyone else. Our society is unnatural, our thoughts are unnatural, our very feelings are unnatural...

Since the second option clearly doesn't hold water, isn't it a total rookie mistake for a thinker to claim that a human action is wrong *a priori*?
Human civilization is a natural phenomenon precisely because we are a product of nature. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for what we do—but responsibility can only lie with the individual, because the individual is the only one actually acting. Society, as an abstract concept, can't take the blame for the things that make us feel guilty; blaming "society" is often just a psychological trick to scrub our own consciences clean of actions we aren't proud of...

Conscience is also a natural phenomenon, just like accountability. A dog doesn't run from a crime scene—not because it's incapable of doing something "wrong," but because it doesn't view its actions through that lens. That doesn't make humans unnatural; it just makes us different... and honestly, animals do show a sense of conscience; it's almost funny, like watching a toddler who knows they did something they weren't supposed to and tries to hide so they won't get grounded... but we only really see animal consciousness when we use punishment to train them—which is a fundamentally flawed (and unfortunately common) way to link those two ideas together...
Every person, like every living thing, knows when they aren't doing the "right" thing—because that's when they are acting against what they actually want. A dog knows it shouldn't swipe a steak off the dinner table, but sometimes it does it anyway because it wants that steak—and we do the exact same thing, just in much more complex ways.

Our true nature hasn't been corrupted; it's just buried under layers of "civilized" behavior. We've adopted hundreds of social rules about what's allowed and what isn't, spent lifetimes inventing justifications for them, and ended up in a place where there's no room left for honest, natural desire.
The real irony is that these rules were born out of distrust toward our own natural impulses. It was a lack of faith in our own correct judgment that led us to outsource our decision-making to others, and eventually, to dump all responsibility onto an abstract entity: society.

Society isn't some freakish mutation; it's just the physical manifestation of the human idea of itself—as a being that isn't allowed to, doesn't know how to, and shouldn't... it's the natural expression of a natural mental capacity: the ability to doubt, even our own selves. And if we don't like it, it's only because we are all participants in that doubt.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

Shakespeare definitely saw it coming...

He can do it because he's the only one free enough to try.

Quincy:

1) Humans are part of nature—neither good nor bad, just natural. Everything we do happens because the very nature we inhabit allows us to do it. Species evolution, including all the mistakes made while learning, remains evolution—not destruction.

If humans are part of nature, then destruction and stagnation are part of it too. Maybe the problem isn't just human nature, but nature itself. If nature allows such a destructive creature to exist, maybe there’s a structural "glitch" in the system. And maybe that glitch is just called "chaos."

I agree that the USA is overcrowded and we really need to focus on controlling population growth. But I’m not buying the idea that war is a necessary tool to get there. Surely we can do better than that. Besides, wars aren't just inherently terrible; they haven't actually worked as a method for population control either. They haven't exactly been "successful." Despite all the fighting in history, the population just keeps climbing regardless. So, if they wanted to actually increase their "efficiency"—meaning lethality—they’d have to be way more brutal than anything we've seen in the past. 😢

Amy Cook71 said:Love fits right in here, doesn't it? Just perfectly.[/I]

Love is the driver, the motivation, and ultimately the reward. I wanted to hear that from someone else—to see those words typed out by another person's hands. It just feels more genuine that way. 🙂

👍
Sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the pursuit of 1) and 2) "love." It's more like...
Striving. 🙂 I’d call that striving toward the third option nothing less than love.

I fear that when people fall in love, they often stumble right into that trap mentioned in Hegel’s second point. It feels like a lack of balance. However, in deep friendship—or in the bond between a parent and a child—that conflict seems to vanish. In those cases, we tend to weigh the needs of those we love just as heavily as our own. Even when our interests clash, we usually try to find a middle ground that hurts the least.

If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. It’s a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.

I’ll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.

Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.

There’s this high schooler out there—someone like me, I suppose—who actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himself—he's doing something useful for the country.
It’s also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why it’s actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, let’s try to keep things upbeat—I’m trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; they’re the fuel driving him to push even further.

When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of duty—both to oneself and to the common good.

Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but it’s walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishness—it's just a fundamental requirement for survival. It’s a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Well—it works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.

I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. 😁 It’s a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. It’s much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.

There’s no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. It’s all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vital—which one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.

It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂

P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.

🙂
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. It’s a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.

I’ll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.

Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.

There’s this high schooler out there—someone like me, I suppose—who actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himself—he's doing something useful for the country.
It’s also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why it’s actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, let’s try to keep things upbeat—I’m trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; they’re the fuel driving him to push even further.

When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of duty—both to oneself and to the common good.

Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but it’s walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishness—it's just a fundamental requirement for survival. It’s a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Well—it works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.

I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. 😁 It’s a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. It’s much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.

There’s no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. It’s all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vital—which one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.

It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂

P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.

🙂
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. It’s a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.

I’ll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.

Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.

There’s this high schooler out there—someone like me, I suppose—who actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himself—he's doing something useful for the country.
It’s also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why it’s actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, let’s try to keep things upbeat—I’m trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; they’re the fuel driving him to push even further.

When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of duty—both to oneself and to the common good.

Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but it’s walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishness—it's just a fundamental requirement for survival. It’s a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Well—it works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.

I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. 😁 It’s a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. It’s much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.

There’s no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. It’s all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vital—which one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.

It could be either.
If we’re strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yes—in an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.😛 🙂

P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday life—to figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.

🙂
I don't follow your logic above, but here's my take: Let's assume "the common good" is clearly defined. Of course, any single person's individual good either aligns with that common good or it doesn't. But while some people's interests align perfectly with the collective good, others' interests often clash with it. In that sense, "both can be true."

Amy Cook71 said:Stumbling upon the thread "Is it getting worse?" left me staring at two specific ideas that deserve some serious scrutiny. 🙂
My apologies in advance if this topic has been covered before—though, frankly, I haven't seen it yet.

unspecified

But how do you actually reconcile the two? What kind of mental gymnastics does an individual have to perform to conclude that their self-interest aligns with the common good? I’d love to see some actual reasoning here. And where does love fit into all of this?

It isn't a simple subject. It forces us to examine our definitions of personal benefit
versus the collective good. It’s an attempt to justify the community's needs through the lens of the individual, and conversely, to justify the individual's needs through the lens of the community.

It seems appropriate to offer some solutions to this recurring pattern of thought—one I think many struggle with, myself included. Let's try to dig into the root causes.

The issue is
unspecified

Reflecting on both of these issues feels interconnected; solving one seems to bring us closer to solving the other.

Philosophers, please, step up to the plate. 🙂

P.S. This might seem obvious, but just to be clear—when I say "good," I am primarily referring to spiritual goods.

You can't just predetermine what the common good is. Anyone who thinks they already have the answer is nothing more than a dogmatist and a bully. Finding that political consensus requires a process. Ideally, that means a democratic one—where the common good actually crystallizes through inclusive, equal debate.
You're aiming for some kind of universal spiritual good. I still think that can only be found through a shared process, rather than being handed down by some individual claiming they had a special vision. But since spiritual fulfillment has been pushed entirely into the private sphere anyway—where nobody can force their version of "goodness" on anyone else—there’s really no need for a democratic procedure to find it. Everyone lives by their own code, and no one should be interfering with that.

Amy Cook71 said:Stumbling upon the thread "Is it getting worse?" left me staring at two specific ideas that deserve some serious scrutiny. 🙂
My apologies in advance if this topic has been covered before—though, frankly, I haven't seen it yet.

unspecified

But how do you actually reconcile the two? What kind of mental gymnastics does an individual have to perform to conclude that their self-interest aligns with the common good? I’d love to see some actual reasoning here. And where does love fit into all of this?

It isn't a simple subject. It forces us to examine our definitions of personal benefit
versus the collective good. It’s an attempt to justify the community's needs through the lens of the individual, and conversely, to justify the individual's needs through the lens of the community.

It seems appropriate to offer some solutions to this recurring pattern of thought—one I think many struggle with, myself included. Let's try to dig into the root causes.

The issue is
unspecified

Reflecting on both of these issues feels interconnected; solving one seems to bring us closer to solving the other.

Philosophers, please, step up to the plate. 🙂

P.S. This might seem obvious, but just to be clear—when I say "good," I am primarily referring to spiritual goods.

There isn’t really a "better" or "worse" here. The only real question worth asking is which good is more important—which one takes priority when they inevitably clash.

Amy Cook71 Asks:
Are they mutually exclusive, or do they complement one another?

Either way works for me.

Amy Cook71 said:Stumbling upon the thread "Is it getting worse?" left me staring at two specific ideas that deserve some serious scrutiny. 🙂
My apologies in advance if this topic has been covered before—though, frankly, I haven't seen it yet.

unspecified

But how do you actually reconcile the two? What kind of mental gymnastics does an individual have to perform to conclude that their self-interest aligns with the common good? I’d love to see some actual reasoning here. And where does love fit into all of this?

It isn't a simple subject. It forces us to examine our definitions of personal benefit
versus the collective good. It’s an attempt to justify the community's needs through the lens of the individual, and conversely, to justify the individual's needs through the lens of the community.

It seems appropriate to offer some solutions to this recurring pattern of thought—one I think many struggle with, myself included. Let's try to dig into the root causes.

The issue is
unspecified

Reflecting on both of these issues feels interconnected; solving one seems to bring us closer to solving the other.

Philosophers, please, step up to the plate. 🙂

P.S. This might seem obvious, but just to be clear—when I say "good," I am primarily referring to spiritual goods.

Nobody is an island. Of course everyone's freedom is limited by someone else's, but that’s just the price we pay if we want to live in a civilized society.

frozenotter232 said:Exactly. A core tenet of evolutionary psychology is that "modern skulls house Stone Age minds." To paraphrase that famous Rousseau idea: we were built to live tribal lives, hunt, gather, and move on. Instead, we find people living and working in cities, factories, and offices in ways that feel completely "inhuman" to our biology.
And yeah, predicting emotional evolution is impossible because we can't account for all the future factors that will drive it (if that's what you meant).

But what role do genetic changes actually play in the future evolution of emotion? It seems to me that the very slowness of genetic shifts you mentioned effectively removes them as a relevant driver here. Social and cultural environments change far too fast for genetics to keep up. People are pretty emotionally maladapted to the conditions of modern, alienated, atomized, and tech-heavy societies. Maybe this lag between our genome and our culture is why we see such widespread emotional dissatisfaction and mental health issues in developed nations. Our "Stone Age brains" just aren't wired for this.

Since changes in the natural—and especially the social—environment are constant, emotional evolution is inevitable. Put simply, there's an ultimatum: either we adapt emotionally, or mental health disorders become so prevalent they wreck society. But like I said, we can't expect genes to prep us for every new environmental condition. Therefore, the driver for emotional adaptation has to be something other than genetics. Unless we hit some sci-fi horror future where sophisticated genetic engineering allows us to mass-produce people in factories with genetically determined emotions specifically designed to handle modern life.

This is nonsense. It frames the issue as if people are the problem rather than the socio-cultural landscape. It suggests we need to fix ourselves instead of fixing the environment. But since that environment is a direct product of human action, we actually have some leverage over it. We should flip the logic: if there’s a mismatch between society and human nature, then society needs to change to bring things back into balance. Fix the environment, not the people.
(I might be losing my grip a little when I argue with myself like this 😁 😢 )

Lawrence Robinson5 said:What kind of feeling is that even supposed to be? Honestly, I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for a while just trying to wrap my head around what you're actually asking. It’s one of those heavy, abstract questions that feels like you're trying to grab smoke with your bare hands, you know? Like, are we talking about that hollow ache you get when you're driving through the suburbs late at night with nothing but a lo-fi playlist playing, or that weird, electric rush of adrenaline when everything finally starts clicking into place? I feel like everyone is chasing some specific sensation—maybe it's that sense of total peace, or maybe it's that chaotic, messy kind of joy that leaves you breathless. But without any context, it's just this massive, undefined void of a question. It’s hard to pin down because, man, life is such a blur of different moods sometimes. You can go from feeling absolutely invincible one minute to feeling like a complete loner the next, just wandering through the fog of your own thoughts. If you could give me even a tiny bit of a hint about what prompted this, I’d love to dive deeper into it with you. I honestly can't believe I'm even typing this, but man, things have just completely vanished. It’s like everything I was working on, all that progress I thought I was making, just evaporated into thin air overnight. You know those moments where you feel like you finally have a grip on things, maybe after a long stretch of grinding through some tough spots, and then suddenly—poof—it's gone? That's exactly where I am right now. It’s incredibly frustrating, especially when you pour so much of yourself into something only to wake up and find the slate wiped clean. I’m still trying to wrap my head around how it happened, just staring at the screen and wondering if I missed something obvious. It’s one of those heavy, sinking feelings you get when you realize you're starting back at square one, and honestly, it’s pretty draining.Honestly, they were all tallied up a long time ago. At this point, there isn't even any movement left—nothing new is being created and nothing is actually fading away. It’s just stagnant.

Animals go through all the same stuff we do, honestly. They feel joy, they feel sorrow—I mean, you see it all the time when a mother loses her young, it’s heartbreaking to watch. They get anxious, they get pissed off... I'm talking about mammals, obviously, but it's pretty much a given.
Just take a second to look at the whole evolutionary chain and think about it—it’s pretty wild when you really dig in. There’s this clear pattern where the more complex an organism becomes, the more intense and layered its emotional landscape gets. It's like, as life builds up more complicated systems, it naturally develops this massive spectrum of feelings to navigate through. You can see it from the simplest creatures all the way up to us; complexity and the sheer depth of what we feel are basically two sides of the same coin.
I honestly feel like we’re sitting right at the peak of this whole evolutionary hierarchy for now. Think about it—our emotions aren't just random noise; they basically act as the bridge that ties our mind and our body together. It works like this: the body hits a point where it feels threatened, or maybe it just realizes there's a chance to grab a decent meal or indulge in some serious comfort, and it sends that impulse straight up to the brain. Since the brain is really just the organ tasked with focusing our consciousness on the physical world, the actual being—that non-physical "self" we all carry around—perceives what's happening and then makes the call on how to react.
It really hits on a much deeper level too—and honestly, it works both ways. Think about it: just the mere thought of some danger that isn't even physically there right now, like when you're suddenly hit by the memory of a nasty car accident you were in years ago, can trigger this massive wave of fear. You feel the pain all over again, and your body reacts instantly; your adrenaline spikes, your heart starts racing, and everything goes haywire. But then you flip the script, and it's the same deal with positive stuff. Just daydreaming about something incredible you're going to experience can flood your system with happiness and get those endorphins pumping. It’s wild how much our minds can actually trick our bodies into feeling things that aren't even happening in the room.

I honestly feel like you just can't separate thought from feeling—they’re basically two sides of the same coin. It feels totally impossible to have any kind of real cognitive awareness without this massive, complex web of emotions running underneath everything. To me, every single feeling we experience ends up throwing a question at us about how we should actually live our lives. It forces you to face a choice: how am I going to react to this? Which direction am I even supposed to take? It's like every emotion is just a nudge toward making a decision.
Evolution and emotions are basically two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other. Honestly, if we didn't have feelings, evolution wouldn't even be a thing because there would be no drive behind it. It’s all connected. I’ve been sitting here thinking about all the different paths we can take, you know? It's funny how life works—one minute you think you've got everything mapped out, and the next, you realize there's a whole universe of possibilities staring you right in the face. I was grabbing coffee over in Seattle the other day, just watching people rush by, and it hit me how many doors are actually open to us if we just stop overthinking things for five seconds. We spend so much time worrying about making the wrong move that we end up standing perfectly still, missing out on everything that could be. It’s like when I was trying to decide whether to take that job offer back in Chicago; I was paralyzed by the "what ifs," but looking back, the sheer amount of opportunity out there is honestly kind of overwhelming if you let it be. We really need to start looking at these moments not as risks, but as pure potential. There's so much room to grow, to change direction, or to just reinvent ourselves entirely if we have the guts to go for it. It’s all about those complex choices we face. It starts with that primal, gut-level fear, which then evolves once our perception of time begins to expand. That's really the key, isn't it? If we didn't have this concept of time—this sense of a timeline—we wouldn't actually have much of a choice at all. Everything would just be a binary, split-second reaction: do I attack or not? Do I eat or not? But because we can perceive the flow of time, that spectrum of possibilities opens up, and suddenly we're dealing with something way more complicated:
Honestly, I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and I really feel like you need to hear me out on this one. When you feel that surge of anger—that raw, heated frustration—it’s usually because someone just crossed a line you specifically drew for yourself. And look, I know people try to tell you that being angry is always a bad thing or that you should just let it go, but I totally disagree. To me, that anger is actually a really healthy signal. It’s your internal compass telling you that your boundaries have been violated. If you don't push back, if you don't say "no" when someone steps over that line, you're basically losing a piece of who you are. Protecting those boundaries isn't being difficult; it's how you define your own sense of self. It’s a vital part of staying whole.
Hatred is such a raw, primal thing—it’s basically that gut-level instinct where you feel like someone is actively threatening your existence, so your only response is to want to wipe them off the map. It’s honestly pretty primitive when you step back and look at it.

I honestly feel like true happiness only really starts to bloom once you're coming from a place of genuine love. It’s not about chasing some high or trying to force things to happen, either—it’s more about that deep, quiet sense of peace you get when you just fully embrace exactly where you are right now. Like, instead of constantly stressing over what’s next or wishing things were different, you just lean into the present moment and accept it for exactly what it is. That kind of total acceptance is where the good stuff actually begins.

There’s something about sadness that actually feels kind of soothing, you know? It’s like this weird, quiet bridge that carries you from one side to the other—taking you from that heavy, negative headspace where everything just feels stuck and paralyzed, straight into a more positive affirmation. It’s that transition from feeling completely blocked and useless to finally finding that spark of clarity that lets you actually move forward and start doing things again.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how feelings don't really work like an inheritance you pass down through generations; they just exist within us right now. We all carry this massive, heavy spectrum of emotions inside us at all times, but let's be honest, we don't all handle them the same way. Take anger, for instance. Anyone can feel that sudden surge of rage—it’s part of being human. But I see people differently based on what they do with it. There are those who just sit there, nursing that anger, letting it fester and rot until it eventually turns into pure, unadulterated hatred. Then there are the others—the ones I try to be—who take that raw energy and somehow reshape it into something productive or even positive. It's all about how you process the heat.
So, how do you actually process or reshape that feeling? I mean, think about it—feeling that flash of anger in the moment is actually pretty healthy. It’s like this raw, unfiltered signal from your gut that says, "Hey, I can't accept this," before your brain even has a chance to step in and start overthinking things. It’s an immediate reaction that tells you something is fundamentally wrong with the situation at hand. But then, once the heat dies down, you hit that stage of logical analysis where everything gets complicated. You have to sit there and figure out if what triggered you was actually the truth or just some total fabrication. Sometimes, that anger hits because we’re facing something uncomfortable about ourselves—maybe a hard truth we’ve been trying to ignore—which is always a tough pill to swallow. Other times, it’s just a complete case of mistaken identity, where someone else completely misreads our intentions or misinterprets what we did, and they're reacting to a version of us that doesn't even exist. It's a weird cycle, honestly.

Look, I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and honestly, it’s such a frustrating cycle to watch. When you get into these heated arguments where one person just flat-out refuses to acknowledge reality—basically insisting that the truth isn't actually true, or trying to twist a blatant lie until it looks like fact—it’s a total disaster. You try to walk them through the logic, but if they’re determined to convince you that you're the one who's wrong (even when it's physically impossible for them to be right), you're basically hitting a brick wall. It doesn't matter how much evidence you bring to the table; once someone decides to rewrite the rules of reality just to win a point, all it does is ramp up the anger. It turns a simple disagreement into this explosive, irrational mess where everyone just ends up pissed off and nothing actually gets resolved.
Look, I’ve realized that once you actually own up to your mistakes—just straight-up admitting, "Yeah, I messed up"—all that heavy, simmering anger just starts to evaporate. It’s like this instant release valve for frustration. And honestly? I think the same thing happens when you just let people believe whatever they want to believe about you. Even if what they're thinking is totally wrong or flat-out false, just letting them run with their own little theories instead of fighting to correct them... it takes the sting out of everything. It's much easier on the soul.

What people call "inherited feelings" are really just the specific ways we learn to react to emotions while we're growing up. Think about it—if you have a parent who’s constantly depressed or prone to outbursts, it usually stems from their own deep-seated insecurity. They live in this constant state of fear, convinced that nothing in life comes easy, so they end up taking that frustration out on the world through apathy or aggression. As a kid, you literally soak up those patterns like a sponge. But look, that isn't some inescapable destiny. Every kid has their own unique identity, and even if you pick up some pretty toxic habits along the way, you aren't going to be a carbon copy of your parents. You always have the power to take those old, programmed reactions and pivot toward something else—something that actually brings you peace and satisfaction instead of just more chaos.

Anyway, I'm rambling now... I can feel myself turning into a textbook for a psychology seminar.

From an evolutionary standpoint, that’s just wrong. As long as the environment keeps changing—which it will—evolution keeps moving, and that includes our emotions. Some feelings might fade, while new ones emerge. Honestly, we couldn't even prove if any specific emotions have died out or appeared since the dawn of humanity without a time machine.

Gary James88 said:Defining emotions isn't exactly easy, but you could call them a collection of physiological shifts, physical changes, goal-oriented behaviors, and subjective experiences.

Animals—mammals at least—possess an emotional life far richer than if they were driven by fear alone.

Why did love evolve? When people talk about love, they usually aren't talking about a single emotion, but rather a complex construct made up of several different parts. That’s why it’s so hard to explain.
From an evolutionary standpoint, experiencing love matters for a few reasons. Creating a strong emotional bond between parents provides a stable environment for offspring to thrive. In these setups, humans selflessly commit their resources, time, and themselves. At the start of a relationship, that initial "rush" helps drive our behavior toward a specific partner, giving us the desire to pursue them, present our best selves, and eventually decide if they are actually right for us.

As for sadness, it serves as a signal for loss. It's an emotion that flags when we've lost something vital to our survival, reproduction, or general well-being. It should prompt us to pause, withdraw, reflect, and gather the strength needed for our next move. A key part of sadness, like other emotions, is how we communicate it—through things like facial expressions. Since we live in communities, expressing sadness acts as an evolutionary SOS to others, signaling that we need help. This might mean anything from material aid and emotional support to simple advice.

Predicting which direction our emotions will evolve is nearly impossible. There are too many variables, ranging from random genetic mutations to the pressures of natural selection—which, in humans, is heavily influenced by socio-cultural factors. You also have to consider how much time it takes for even a minor change to spread through a population, which can take hundreds of thousands of years. This is why evolutionists argue that modern humans are essentially being born with brains adapted for the Stone Age.

Exactly. A core tenet of evolutionary psychology is that "modern skulls house Stone Age minds." To paraphrase that famous Rousseau idea: we were built to live tribal lives, hunt, gather, and move on. Instead, we find people living and working in cities, factories, and offices in ways that feel completely "inhuman" to our biology.
And yeah, predicting emotional evolution is impossible because we can't account for all the future factors that will drive it (if that's what you meant).

But what role do genetic changes actually play in the future evolution of emotion? It seems to me that the very slowness of genetic shifts you mentioned effectively removes them as a relevant driver here. Social and cultural environments change far too fast for genetics to keep up. People are pretty emotionally maladapted to the conditions of modern, alienated, atomized, and tech-heavy societies. Maybe this lag between our genome and our culture is why we see such widespread emotional dissatisfaction and mental health issues in developed nations. Our "Stone Age brains" just aren't wired for this.

Since changes in the natural—and especially the social—environment are constant, emotional evolution is inevitable. Put simply, there's an ultimatum: either we adapt emotionally, or mental health disorders become so prevalent they wreck society. But like I said, we can't expect genes to prep us for every new environmental condition. Therefore, the driver for emotional adaptation has to be something other than genetics. Unless we hit some sci-fi horror future where sophisticated genetic engineering allows us to mass-produce people in factories with genetically determined emotions specifically designed to handle modern life.

The Hanged Man asks:
So, since we’re still evolving—even if it's just in tiny increments—can anyone actually guess how this all ends?

I don't think you can.

I mean, will we eventually sense the world around us more acutely, or perhaps feel things we didn't even know existed?

Who knows?

And why are we getting more complicated anyway? Why did evolution decide that feeling more is better than feeling less?🤷

From what I understand about evolutionary psychology, emotions are an adaptation. They help us adjust to our environment, which basically means better survival and reproduction rates.

swiftcobra15 said:There’s really no need for such mental gymnastics. We can exist together despite our differences.

and certainly no need to manufacture a world government—in fact, such things would be entirely redundant.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

I don't know. It all depends on how deep these differences actually go. You clearly think they’re just surface-level because...

Cosmopolitanism is built on the idea that human values are universal. It’s about finding unity within a massive sea of diversity—one single, interconnected humanity.

I think a lot of people who take a lot of pride in their individuality wouldn't be able to stomach my take.

Globalization is just a slow grind toward mediocrity. It’s designed to flatten everything out, wiping away local culture and unique heritage to make room for a forced, hollow sense of unity. The end goal isn't connection; it's creating a mass of people without any real identity, perfectly programmed to be nothing more than mindless consumers.
...
So, there’s really no reason to force equalization.
There’s absolutely no need to force some "new world culture" on us.
At least when it comes to building some kind of global superpower—actually, forget that. The ones we have right now are already redundant.

You and filozof28 both hit on the same point: global, unchecked capitalism moves way faster than any government can keep up with. You're pointing out the dark side of globalization, but it raises a massive question. If governments aren't willing to actually work together or form serious alliances, who is going to rein this wild capitalism in? What other entity actually has enough leverage to push back against these global forces?

Globalization mostly just strips away our humanity. It turns people into nothing more than targets for total manipulation.
She’s a total nightmare for anyone who actually believes in cosmopolitanism.

Like I said, globalization isn't just some buzzword. My main point was about how people are actually connecting and building networks that didn't exist before. To me, those connections are a prerequisite for anyone to develop a cosmopolitan identity—though, honestly, I don't think they're enough on their own.

Which local community I identify with is a question for another time.
That doesn't necessarily make it a nation.
A community can be bigger or smaller than the nation itself. It’s entirely possible.

It’s true that the community someone identifies with doesn't have to be a nation. Honestly, identifying with a nation is a relatively recent historical development anyway. My point about nations was just an example. Still, I don't think an identity can ever be broad enough to include everyone; there just isn't enough of a solid foundation for that. Sure, we are all humans first, and a cosmopolitan might claim "I am a human being" as their primary identity. But that kind of identification lacks any real socio-political weight. It’s hard to turn something that vague into a mass movement.
Look, what do I know? Maybe time will prove me wrong.

Nicole Castillo11 said:If cosmopolitans are considered "schizophrenic" because they juggle conflicting viewpoints, then what does that say about political party members? Parties operate on set platforms, rigid ideologies, and the mandates of their leadership. I can't help but wonder how a true philosopher could ever maintain any sense of individual identity within one...

Some philosopher will probably just opt for that whole socio-political-identity thing... 🙂 Choosing a "lesser evil" or succumbing to political apathy just to fit in—that’s what makes someone a true pioneer of thought. They embrace ideas that clash with the status quo, which is exactly what defines a philosopher... Though, one has to wonder: is a philosopher a seeker of truth, or merely a seeker of wisdom? And what's really the difference...

Regarding cosmopolitanism...The concept of enlightened, humanitarian souls building connections that transcend national, religious, or political borders to foster global unity... It sounds lovely on paper. But aside from those "enlightened" types...Even a self-proclaimed chauvinist might make an exception for their favorite writers, artists, or pageant queens. But I have to wonder what you can actually expect from cosmopolitanism when it comes down to just two nations, or even different cultures and religions... It’s a messy question. In certain parts of the States, the exact same offense is punished differently; some things are criminalized in one state while being encouraged in another. For instance, drawing a caricature of Muhammad is seen as an expression of free spirit and artistic liberty in the West, yet in other places, authors face death threats and their countrymen suffer global boycotts because of it. If a philosopher or a cosmopolitan claims to stand by everyone's right to their own views—including their gods—they’ll likely find themselves feeling like a total outsider in places where those views aren't tolerated... 🙄 Different customs, rights, morals, and values inevitably trigger conflict. These differences only serve to deepen polarization between sides; people stop asking who is actually at fault and instead focus on "which side are we on?" If a cosmopolitan advocates for everyone to just follow their own path, aren't they actually the most extreme nationalists of all?...

Take the USA imposing sanctions on Burma over human rights violations, for instance—ignoring how they won't touch China nearly as easily, or how they basically oversee the arms and drug trade in Burma themselves... Is it really "cosmopolitan" to meddle in another nation's internal affairs? It reminds me of that American movie about Alexander the Great. They paint him as this romantic cosmopolitan because he had a vision of conquering the entire world just so there wouldn't be anyone left to fight. In that light, "cosmopolitans" are just people intending to seize the globe and force their own specific set of rules and rights upon everyone else. According to that screenwriter, cosmopolitanism is just wanting the whole world to look exactly like Greece...

I’ve always been skeptical of this whole "citizen of the world" thing cosmopolitans love to preach. I just don't buy it... you can't truly feel at home everywhere.

That mindset assumes there's such a thing as universal values. It suggests a wise, global citizen would act the same way regardless of where they land, because they follow some inherent sense of justice or humanity. But what's considered "natural" depends entirely on survival. In one part of the world, people might sacrifice everything just to keep a tribe alive, while in another, that's unthinkable. And if what is "natural" changes based on the environment...

So, what’s your angle here? Are you saying cosmopolitans are inherently contradictory? Or are we talking about people twisting cosmopolitan ideals to fit their own agenda? Maybe you're suggesting there are actually two different definitions of cosmopolitanism at play. Or something else entirely? What is it?

Capitalism is a powerhouse—a tiger with massive potential to jumpstart an economy. But that only works if our government and political institutions actually keep a leash on it. Globalization basically opened the cage door, letting this beast run wild. Now, we’re dealing with a version of capitalism that acts exactly like an unleashed predator.
Benjamin R. Barber.

I think this is a pretty one-sided take on globalization. It isn't the same thing as unrestrained "wild" capitalism. In short, globalization is about increasing integration and interdependence across different parts of the world, driven by advances in transportation, communication tech, and so on. This process touches almost every aspect of life, not just the economy. Unchecked global capitalism is just one facet of globalization—and a negative one at that—but it isn't necessarily inseparable from the concept itself. Didn't communism have globalist ambitions too?

Globalization is setting the stage for this shared "middle class" culture where everyone basically owns the same stuff as their neighbors. It’s predictable. But it makes me wonder: do the cosmopolitan philosophers actually fit into that mold too?

I haven't the slightest clue. 🤷