Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Change the world Options · View
oldrascal
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2012 3:43:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
"Here is my answer, we do away with Ignorance and hate"

There is a vast difference between ignorance and stupidity. which are we speaking of? Ignorance can be overcome with education and mankind has made great strides toward that goal thru the ages. Stupidity and hate go hand in hand and to paraphrase the philosopher, Ron White, you can't fix stupid.
nazhinaz
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:58:19 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


It's interesting that you bring up philosophers. It's even more interesting that the examples you choose are darlings of the collectivists. Try reading some individualists; Locke, Paine, Nietzsche, Rand. Philosophers are proof that individuals can change the course of history on a grand scale, through fame. But individuals can change the course of history on a grand scale through acts of disobedience to societal norms which then become famous. Look up Rosa Parks and Mahatma Gandhi.

But an individual has no obligation to change the world at all. It just happens that, by being an individualist in a world where so few mature past their conformism and their sense of entitlement to having their purposes served by others, it isn't all that difficult to serve as an example of good.


Neither Mahatama Gandhi nor Rosa Parks changed the course of history. They definitely were epitome of the change.
Its a total misconception of historical evolution. In the case of Mahatama Ghandi,
there was a background of over 200 years of hatred of alien rule in India and even a major revolt in 1857 had shaken the very foundations of british colonial rule in India, in which Ghandi Ji had no role. He was not even born then.
Congress, the party on whose plateform he further led the freedom movement was incidently formed by a britisher.
Rosa Parks too had over 200 years of historical subjugation and hatred against it. She symbolized the change, true, but don't forget she stood over that hatred of over 200 years.
I believe we take things and persons in isolation and not in historical background.
Neither Ghandi Ji nor Rosa Parks were the persons who changed. They symbolised the epitome of movements that were there and which had thousands rather millions participating and in the case of Indian Freedom Movement, had the human sacrifices of over millions of lives.
Its good to know about Locke but about Hobbs, Rouseau, Rosa Luxemberg and Fredrick Engles, Adam Smith and hundreds of names of the political philosophers.
How much do I wish that we could debate the issue if we both had revisited "Origin of Family, State and Private property" by Fredrick Engles, which is a masterpiece on historical evolution.
I would like to end this discussion on the note that while looking at the role of indiviuals, however towering personalities they may be, we should not overlook the historical process that gave prominence to these personalities and view them in historical prospective.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:52:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:


Neither Mahatama Gandhi nor Rosa Parks changed the course of history. They definitely were epitome of the change.
Its a total misconception of historical evolution. In the case of Mahatama Ghandi,
there was a background of over 200 years of hatred of alien rule in India and even a major revolt in 1857 had shaken the very foundations of british colonial rule in India, in which Ghandi Ji had no role. He was not even born then.
Congress, the party on whose plateform he further led the freedom movement was incidently formed by a britisher.
Rosa Parks too had over 200 years of historical subjugation and hatred against it. She symbolized the change, true, but don't forget she stood over that hatred of over 200 years.
I believe we take things and persons in isolation and not in historical background.
Neither Ghandi Ji nor Rosa Parks were the persons who changed. They symbolised the epitome of movements that were there and which had thousands rather millions participating and in the case of Indian Freedom Movement, had the human sacrifices of over millions of lives.
Its good to know about Locke but about Hobbs, Rouseau, Rosa Luxemberg and Fredrick Engles, Adam Smith and hundreds of names of the political philosophers.
How much do I wish that we could debate the issue if we both had revisited "Origin of Family, State and Private property" by Fredrick Engles, which is a masterpiece on historical evolution.
I would like to end this discussion on the note that while looking at the role of indiviuals, however towering personalities they may be, we should not overlook the historical process that gave prominence to these personalities and view them in historical prospective.


Typical collectivist, discounting the value of the individual because sooner or later some other individual would have come along and sparked the same sea-change toward greater respect for individual rights. The way these individuals chose to resist has as much to do with the course of history as the fact that the times were ripe for change. Had Gandhi chosen something other than non-violent civil disobedience as his strategy, the history of India could be quite different now.

But, as usual, you're being inconsistent. You're downplaying the value of the individual while naming individuals who have influenced history. Resistance to stupid laws is risky but can be rewarding. Resistance to calls for irrational self-sacrifice is rewarding. Both rewards can come from simply being a good person who does not succumb to calls to conform to social mores designed to sustain an authority derived from an irrational premise.

So you go ahead and continue to preach the value of conformity and I'll continue to fly under the radar and ignore laws and mores that don't serve my purposes. I'll also continue to allow others to do so and help others to find the benefits of doing so.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
nazhinaz
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:43:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


Typical collectivist, discounting the value of the individual because sooner or later some other individual would have come along and sparked the same sea-change toward greater respect for individual rights. The way these individuals chose to resist has as much to do with the course of history as the fact that the times were ripe for change. Had Gandhi chosen something other than non-violent civil disobedience as his strategy, the history of India could be quite different now.

But, as usual, you're being inconsistent. You're downplaying the value of the individual while naming individuals who have influenced history. Resistance to stupid laws is risky but can be rewarding. Resistance to calls for irrational self-sacrifice is rewarding. Both rewards can come from simply being a good person who does not succumb to calls to conform to social mores designed to sustain an authority derived from an irrational premise.

So you go ahead and continue to preach the value of conformity and I'll continue to fly under the radar and ignore laws and mores that don't serve my purposes. I'll also continue to allow others to do so and help others to find the benefits of doing so.

Jut one liner responce.
Had Ghandi Ji chosen some other occupation, like lawyer that he was, someone else would have jumped into his shoes. Same is true for all those philosophers. March of history does not wait for indiviuals.
FelineFantasy
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:59:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/14/2011
Posts: 387
FelineFantasy
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:02:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/14/2011
Posts: 387
oldrascal wrote:
"Here is my answer, we do away with Ignorance and hate"

There is a vast difference between ignorance and stupidity. which are we speaking of? Ignorance can be overcome with education and mankind has made great strides toward that goal thru the ages. Stupidity and hate go hand in hand and to paraphrase the philosopher, Ron White, you can't fix stupid.


This will never be attained. It's the circle of life, there is always a divide between species. The balance of good and evil, the clear distinction between strong and weak.. If everyone were the same, there would be chaos. The world could not function long enough to sustain that kind of environment. At some point, someone would snap and repeat the vicious cycle all over again. It's the way we're designed! Nice wishful thinking though.

Click > here < to read my first feature story, Techno Aphrodite by Piquet!
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:47:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

Jut one liner responce.
Had Ghandi Ji chosen some other occupation, like lawyer that he was, someone else would have jumped into his shoes. Same is true for all those philosophers. March of history does not wait for indiviuals.


Never said it did, just that individuals can change the direction of the march a little bit. At the very least, they can reach their personal limits where they choose to shrug off the yokes or just not pull so hard on the gravy train that somebody else is riding.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:23:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
Thought this topic died awhile ago, now it caught ablaze once more.

Ill admit I was feelling like I could save the world, I do relise now and invidual approach would be the best way to do it, even just small kind gestures like opening/holding doors for people, if it brighten someones day youve did change someones world...
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:43:48 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,118
Great works would begin to help. Things that would help a lot of people for no profit. Something like irrigating the desert and beginning to grow trees that would shelter grass that would bring more rain eventually etc etc and then the crops could grow and starvation would cease to be a problem...
The big players like oil companies could do alot more than they do but until we stop trying to make people buy stuff for money, i think we are all screwed.
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2012 11:36:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,118
To change the world we have to change ourselves first. How can we lead when we're barely qualified to follow? And what changes will we make that won't be corrupted or merely forgotten by suceeding generations? Jesus' call to love each other degenerated into the Crusades and the Inquistion. Ghandi's tenents of non-violence were utterly forgotten in the partition of Indian and Pakistan and the subsequent sectarian violence that killed over one million people. As individuals we have to change ourselves first and then by example to others we can become a beacon. As Lao Tzu said, "To a mind that is still, the entire universe surrenders." But that change is a lifetime of practice and one that may not ever come to fruition. The world is not something over which we have any real control. But we can choose how to behave. That's where we start if we want to make changes in our world.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.