[Epistemologist]

Quote by: TheColdTruth What things made you arrive at your position? What corruptive effects have you noticed that are based ONLY from selfishness (not from laziness, immorality, or short-sightedness)? Allow too much? What are you afraid of, not having a government dictate to everyone what they are and are not allowed to do, like the good subjects they are?

The biggest problems of selfishness that I've noticed is the downfall of movements and nations due to the egotism of a few individuals. Whether you like it or not, and I see the possible problems with it, but nationalism is opposite of egotism, which I'll call individualism i.e. not in the conventional sense of the word. When I say nationalism, I actually mean something more like "cultural-ism," in which each person looks more towards the interests of his/her community, which is defined according to a common inherent fiber of being, rather than his/her primitive needs when the two are in conflict.

That's assuming, of course, that a nationalistic action is truly sincere. For instance, it could be argued that Otto von Bismark was not a true German nationalist because all he wanted was a position of power in a solidified German state's government rather than the true welfare of his community; the same could be said of Cavour and others. Traitors such as Benedict Arnold in the U.S., the guy who betrayed the French community by ruling the Nazi occupation's Vichy government, and Mir Jafar who betrayed the Indian people to the English are frequent reminders of the weakness of individuals.

No, I never said that I want a government dictating to everyone. In fact, that isn't supposed to be what's happening. The goal, however, is to have a place where there is no excessive individualism, which makes us less human. This can only, be achieved, though, with a single cultural group, and the establishment of a single community with no deviance. People should know based on that common inherent fiber of their being what they need to do; government might simply be a whispering director of the collective will.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Exactly what "aesthetic betterment" is it that you keep referring to. Must be something pretty important to you since you've used the jargon twice though, however with no more definition than a vague "feeling".

The minimization of individualism. Indeed, some can't really be avoided because to remove all animalistic instinct might actually destroy us, but we can approach a certain goal through the national solidarity in the universal sense.

Quote by: TheColdTruth I really don't mind insults as much as I'm sure the moderators do (wouldn't want anyone to be offended now, would we), but I shall forgive you when you formally either retract your statements or explain them. If you're apologizing I'm to assume that you're retracting some of your statements?

No, I don't retract anything; you wanted further explanation, so I gave it. It just seemed like you were taken aback by my comments, which I felt were a matching response to your post.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Most optimal? How does optimization fit into morality, exactly? Do you mean your position is correct? Don't be afraid to drop the newspeak [sic] and say what you mean... "I still think I'm correct". I'm sure you do, all I'm asking for is the reasons behind why you believe as such. Why do you think you're correct? This is a debate board and understanding the reasons behind something is the quintessential cornerstone for debate. I'm just trying to get to an objective point.

When I say optimal, I mean it in the aesthetic, moral, and perhaps even metaphysical sense. Aesthetic in that there is minimized individualism; of course, like I said, we can't have a perfect world by eliminating all individualism, but we can make it as optimal as possible by eliminating whatever individualism we can.

Moral optimization can occur through this, in that there would be a single system of ethics associated with the achievement of the minimization of individualism because there would be a single culture.

And metaphysical optimization might also occur in the looser sense of the word since the intersubjective frame of reference associated with that culture's beliefs can be expanded and represent the absolute truth at least for humans. I still think I'm correct.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Post Edit: Something I wanted to point out. By no means do I think man always does the right and moral thing if given the choice. However by the existene [sic] of organized society continuing every day in a progressive fashion (more than less, I'm well aware there's giant ghosts in the closet that hold back how fast we progress) it is apparent that the majority of people work towards a good, contstructive [sic] end. I don't think its right making laws that punish everyone for a few evil mens' actions. I think normal society can be trusted with a LOT more than they currently are, and that they SHOULD and WILL be. Eventually, anyway.

Yes, that's another possible solution, although individualism wouldn't be minimized. And perhaps in the society of which you speak, they do work towards an ultimately good end, but they do so for themselves alone, and not for society's benefit. Each scientist building a rocket, for instance, is doing it to feed their families and not for the advancement of their community. Each volunteer planting a tree is doing it for some worldly or possibly divine recognition. Each man fertilizing a woman is doing it for his own pleasure or his future family, and not for the sake of his nation.
Here's an added example of individualism in the society of which you speak that's perhaps one of the best: the high number of divorces, which most often occur when people have no respect for the cultural element of matrimony and instead view marriage as just another thing to please themselves that can be "returned" just like cookies, soap, or a lawnmower. And all that, I'm afraid, is a risky problem with that society of which you speak.

There are some directive nationalists who drive that society forward. However, why not have more? Why not optimize the situation? Why not make one's nation prosper? The truth, however, is that that society of which you speak is fundamentally individualistic. It's like a virus, which many argue isn't even living, but it reproduces and continues. Indeed, it might be more correct to call it a pseudo-society; it's merely a collection of selfishly driven individuals.

You may think that what I'm saying is bad and stuff, but I really think that this is something that can't be discussed and resolved. It can only be resolved through other means. But eh, you asked.