(untitled)

Is there even any point engaging with ideological movements that promises some sort of 'future' that you will in all likelihood never live to see? Does repping and spreading an ideology you don't personally believe will triumph in your lifetime imply something ill about your character? A particular 'weird-twitter' / 'always-online-twitter' persona i follow on social-media recently made two posts [which i will paraphrase to keep this ideologically neutral] which really made me think. >It's going to take at least 100 years to build a movement capable of overcoming this regime. >It's going to take generations to rebuild the [...] movement in this country. The question i guess would be this, If this particular 'ism' isn't going to give me and the people i care about the promised carrot at the end of the stick in any of our lifetimes, but instead just expects me to be some sort of part-time P.R. guy, Part-Time thought-jannie for free etc etc etc, 'spreading the message' so that in 100 years when I'm a coffin full of bones, someone else MAY get to experience the carrot, Then what on earth is the point of this exhaustion of energy on ideology? Why do people even bother engaging with ideology like this if there is this deep seated realisation that them and their loved ones will never live to benefit? Is it all just TedK politics power-play?

>>64725 >Is there even any point engaging with ideological movements that promises some sort of 'future' that you will in all likelihood never live to see? Of course not, but it gives vapid people some meaning. >Does repping and spreading an ideology you don't personally believe will triumph in your lifetime imply something ill about your character? It would be playing an actor for one's entire life. >Then what on earth is the point of this exhaustion of energy on ideology? >Why do people even bother engaging with ideology like this if there is this deep seated realisation that them and their loved ones will never live to benefit? Is it all just TedK politics power-play? I believe the term people on Twitter use for this is grift.

This is why I hate politics. Also, take in count that things can change in less than 100 years, but the people in power don't want to. People can make great change in a few years, but only if they all want to.

>>64725 >'future' that you will in all likelihood never live to see This concern just means you are selfish. >>64726 >vapid people You're accusing people who care about others and the future of being vapid. Good job, you're projecting.

big projects are fun. also maybe you appreciate the fruits of your ancestors labour, and feel some inclination to labour on behalf of your descendants. Something something healthy society is one where old men plant trees in whose shade they know theyll never rest. maybe you should just kill yourself, od on some pain killers or something ? >that them and their loved ones will never live to benefit? do you not love your kids' kids ? and their kids ? and so on and so forth ? >People can make great change in a few years, but only if they all want to. getting them all to want to is a big change lol. Big changes I think take a couple generations, if they're going to reach any sort of stability. Pretty sure we're still reeling from the second and first world war power structure changes and demography.

>>64725 >Is there even any point engaging with ideological movements that promises some sort of 'future' that you will in all likelihood never live to see? Presumably, you believe that this struggle is righteous one. Doing right thing is enough for a lot of people. >Why do people even bother engaging with ideology like this if there is this deep seated realisation that them and their loved ones will never live to benefit? Even marginal success could mean improvement, or at least slowing things getting worse.

>>64732 >you are selfish Everybody is selfish

>>64742 Unfortunately for you, I'm not a selfish hyperindividualist. So, kindly keep me, and every other half decent person, out of your Randian fantasy.

>>64743 Everybody is selfish, most actions of every individual are done for one's own benefit. Cooperation is a more effective way to be selfish, and it even makes people create stories about selflesness and the mean "selfish hyperindividualists" as a sort of strawman label to avoid acknowledging their own selfishness.

>>64744 This is a classic tactic to justify selfishness. Everyone knows that all actions can be interpreted to arise from genetic self-interest due to the simple necessities of evolution. But generally we consider "selfishness" to refer to actions which benefit oneself while only incidentally benefitting others, if at all. This is not the same as self-interest. Many behaviors of animals and humans do not have this property, and are therefore not selfish.

I don't care about providing a good future for others once I am dead. Nothing is ever certain, once you're dead there is no way for you to know that your legacy was enjoyed by future individuals or if it was destroyed by some force. You can naively tell yourself it will survive. Nothing can withstand time, it will inevitably collapse after death, for most their contribution will wither in a relatively short period of time after death. If providing a good future for the unborn matters to you, and brings you purpose, that is fine, it's just not for me. I would be more inclined to make observable change, change occurring within my lifetime.

>>64725 The problem is that communism to an extend does the same thing as Christianity does. This world is like kicking dead whales down the beach, the one after doesn't. Christianity promises heaven, communism promises gay space utopia. Same thing applies to any ideology (also Nazism, always funny how they used Nietzsche honestly) and maybe it is in human nature but I guess stop believing in a hinterwelt and rather live in the now and then and just not give any fuarrrks.

>Is there even any point engaging with ideological movements Engaging with sure. Joining, No

>>64744 A hyperindividualist is selfish. This is not a strawman "label". It simply is. >Everybody is selfish Your mind is poisoned by modernity. They follow Ayn Rand's ideas while believing that they hate her and her ideas. I self-improve for my family, community, and race. You just cannot comprehend something like this. We couldn't critique modernity about being this way if it wasn't extremely common. >Cooperation is a more effective way to be selfish What a depressing worldview you have. The "rat race", the materialism, and so on... All that and being suspicious of others.

>>64750 not >>64744 but >I self-improve for my family, community, and race. I would argue that in that case family, community and race are pretty selfish in there affairs maybe not in the same form a human is selfish but as a collective to you. Take any of these 3 things you mentioned and it seems like they create their own rules, what does it mean to for example become a better son? Well whatever is defined by the family and where did they get their rules from? Who knows. Culture, religion or "it always has been like that" maybe. All rules are abstract. To improve must mean that you were worse before but who defines what you were other than yourself?

if loving your family and community is 'selfish' then what is it to not be selfish ? insane martyrdom complex will-die-for-the-first-stranger who-asks-me-to ?

>>64753 Well is it bad to be selfish? The point I am trying to get across is that instead of working for some other selfish person (like all people who have power or god or whatever) you could just be selfish yourself. But when you do it, it's something "bad" cause we live in a society having a slave-morality kink.

>>64754 ok well what is selfishness ? I think it would be prioritizing yourself to a disproportionate degree over all others. Maybe a normal person would take significant discomfort in order to help his family, and a selfish person in contrast will weight his own comort higher, and need greater-than-average motivation to interceed. I like ayn rand too, and its a dangerous thing when you start saying not only is it good for someone to have some concern for the wellfare of others but that they actually have a duty to every random person who they could help. Its possible to frame a lot of community minded goals and behaviors as egotistical and selfish though. Maybe I pick up trash in my neighborhood and people think this is altruistic. But maybe I just do it because I don't like trash in my neighborhood and figured the most expedient way to reach that goal is to clean it myself. Maybe I have long term desires of what I'd like to happen in the world and I figure the way to do this is to have children and raise them well. Its not for the childs sake that I am raising him, but just because raising him is a way to reach my personal goals. Ayn Rand heros generally don't have children and a society of childless people obviously can't long survive, but they do have ambitions and they do have desires and sometimes love or things that seem like it are the practical ways to pursue those self centred desires.

>>64754 >Well is it bad to be selfish? Under most commonly accepted ethical guidelines, yes it is bad to be selfish. Changing the definition of "selfish" to include all behaviors is a great way to muddy the waters on what is being talked about, not a great way to actually talk about it. >But when you do it, it's something "bad" cause we live in a society having a slave-morality kink. Other people lapsing on their ethical duties does not excuse your ethical duties.

>>64758 >I like ayn rand too I don't like her. Also I do get the point of "helping the community will help you" and to some extend that is the case, but I am always aware of it, also we don't have that direct helping anymore. Today I get money if I help someone, with that money I will buy a laptop made in china and boom my community affairs turned into making some billionaire richer. >>64759 >Under most commonly accepted ethical guidelines, yes it is bad to be selfish. Who made those ethical guidelines? Thinkers and religious figures and so on. So those who just want there power to be preserved..... seems pretty selfish to me. Also when a "self-made billionaire" is selfish it is good for the economy but when I am, I am a monster. Morality is never consistent. When I kill a neighbor it's bad, but if society or/and the leaders tell me to kill I am a war hero.

>>64760 >I don't like her. can you quickly explain your disagreement with her ? >boom my community affairs ruin! paid betrayal is nothing new. Happened to Christ, too.

>>64761 Well I am not a big fan of ratio (like the Latin ratio) and that is pretty much all I know of her. Her idea of capitalism will also just end up being feudalism. I haven't really read into her because I don't like her overall approach and rather spend my time better..... like being on image boards..... you have a point.

>>64762 well if we have a slow day on the image boards maybe you should consider reading one. We the living isn't bad and a little shorter than i.e. atlas shruged. She gets badly misrepresented sometimes so even if you hate her worth reading one book. I say that but I read a lot so lol maybe you're different. On the other hand if you think she's pro capitalism maybe atlas shrugged or fountainhead will do better to set you straight ahaha.

>>64763 I have enough books to read Schopenhauer also said you shouldn't read too many books..... very based lmao

>>64747 >Same thing applies to any ideology (also Nazism, always funny how they used Nietzsche honestly) Well the Nazi's 'use' of Nietzsche in terms of use of the idea of the 'overman' is literally just functionally wrong, since they use 'overman' to describe a particular race of people they decoded exists according to theosophical race science or whatever, which they assume to just be 'overmen' since birth. >>64750 >>64761 >They follow Ayn Rand's ideas while believing that they hate her and her ideas. >can you quickly explain your disagreement with her ? Not who your asking, but it's worth noting that even if someone has what is essentially a more Nihilist and/or Individualist and/or Egoist mindset that doesn't instantly mandate agreement with someone like Rand. An immediate critique i would have of her ideology is the entire idea she lays out of a 'objectivist epistemology', [Which is also the name of her most extensive 'non-fiction' book.] Essentially, Rand attempts to formulate the idea that despite her worldview being Atheistic and Nihilistic...a 'objective morality' still actually exists...Which pretty much puts her at odds with most other writers in this vein. The most obvious thing she applies this to is property rights, where Rand argues that a intrinsic 'right' to property is 'real', When in general 'Nihilists' have always tended to view property as something one is only given a 'right' to hold if they are capable of doing so. The position can be held that the world needs either [A.] a literal teleological purpose for being or [B.] Has no meaning plural, In reality, People all having the aspect of Dionysus/Kaos/Irrationality within them and passions will form their own subjective meanings and purposes for the world. Regardless of a metanarrative or enforced political eschatology.

>>64766 >since they use 'overman' to describe a particular race of people No they don't lol. Have you read any national socialist theory at all?

>>64766 >Not who your asking, but it's worth noting that even if someone has what is essentially a more Nihilist and/or Individualist and/or Egoist mindset that doesn't instantly mandate agreement with someone like Rand. yeah yeah I know I know. I didn't mention her at the OP because he seems a hard nihilist feeling and rand sure as hell isnt. That being said rand is an egoist and entierly hates the idea of service to others for their benifit, which is what the fellow I was replying to was discussing. She strikes a balance with this egoism that doesn't let it fall to complete hedonism, her characters love beauty, constructiveness and vitality, and are interested in building things that last a hundred or a thousand years despite this sort of egoism.

Reading how the (western, I presume) moralists virtue signal about muh ethics in here has made me dream of violently disrupting a psychology (or whatever it was) class I was taking in order to shove some basic evolutionary biology down the throat of a lector who's been 'educating' the class about them morals, lol. Seriously though, some of you are obsessed with morality so much it's disgusting, especially so if you think of it being and treat the whole thing as yet another (egoistic, as some lain above has rightfully pointed out) mean to compete. No wonder people obsessed with whether it is ok to act or even think in a particular way (Christ, what a joke) as to, in the end, not disrupt or draw any unwanted attention from the society are being conquered from within.

>>64771 >Reading how the (western, I presume) moralists virtue signal about muh ethics in here has made me dream of violently disrupting a psychology (or whatever it was) class I was taking in order to shove some basic evolutionary biology down the throat of a lector who's been 'educating' the class about them morals, lol. And what, Then everybody will clap?

>>64768 >service to others for their benifit I mean isn't this literally the dynamic made in her ultra-hyper-capitlism? Like if you do any work for your boss how can you say that the labor you put in got a 100% return for you? Because it doesn't...... else the boss wouldn't be your boss because it would not be profitable. The only reason why your boss is your boss and why a king is a king isn't because they are born different or they soykaf different..... no, it's because most agree to their power...... everyone is brainwashed...... everyone is a slave........ The "left" and the "right" all fall into this trap, for example. Daily wire people saying that "the left only cares about who is suppressed more, it's like a game for them, pffff"..... for gods sake they are christians.... the entire idea is that you are less then god.... but let's say god exists..... they do the exact same thing in their politics.... THEY stole the election, THEY wanna turn our children trans, THEY hate our nuclear family....... it's all about being a victim but that's stupid..... who cares about the THEY..... care about yourself.... the THEY is just a tool for you to think you are suppressed and those who use the tool are actually suppressing you, but you don't realize I should take my meds lainon

>>64725 When you take such ego driven approach at looking at the world, nothing is worth it. But what is most interesting is that if you argue that you are going to die, it is inevitable and essential to your life, you free yourself from your ego and you are ready to metaphorically die for a cause, to give your life to a purpose greater than yourself. That is what means to kill your ego, not to surpass it in purpose but to have it subdued like a wild animal.

>>64773 >I mean isn't this literally the dynamic made in her ultra-hyper-capitlism? Like if you do any work for your boss how can you say that the labor you put in got a 100% return for you? Because it doesn't...... else the boss wouldn't be your boss because it would not be profitable. The difference is that its an honest trade, and trades can be made which leave both parties happy. If the worker is agreeing to work as it advances his goals (maybe he wants money, maybe he wants experience, finds the work enjoyable or the project good), and the boss agrees to have the worker as it advances the boss' goals (maybe he wants to build something cool and can't do it all himself) then both parties are profiting by this agreement, and both are happy. >The only reason why your boss is your boss and why a king is a king isn't because they are born different or they soykaf different..... no, it's because most agree to their power...... everyone is brainwashed...... everyone is a slave........ I don't think you've read any ayn rand books. if you have, restate this argument for me in terms of dagney taggert and hank riordan. Riordan becomes the boss not because he is born to it but because he is a strong and willfull man with ambitions, and the realization of his ambitions requires that he become the boss for no one else is going to do it for him. A big part of his problem is that there are very many people who do not agree to his power, who are not as you say, brainwashed, who think that they should own his foundries and his products which he by his own determination created. His employees generally respect him on the other hand, for he's a powerful man doing remarkable things and they get to be a part of it, in an honest mutual agreement which benefits both parties. >for gods sake they are christians.... daily wire is run by a jew. >I should take my meds lainon idk man that sounds sketchy

>>64760 If you confuse "what is ethical" with "what others tell me to do", of course you will end up with slave morality. Ethics predates religion by a fair bit, I would guess.