The way the world should be...

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
I heard this by a disappointed liberal that the world isn't this way or not the way she wanted it to be. In this person's vision of the world it is imperfect filled with sexest bigotry but Christians also see the world imperfect by the spiritual beliefs that they have such as not everyone believing in Christ. They also lament about 'the way things ought to be...' and spend their time, just as any 'liberal' does, trying to alter everyone's world to fit what they think the world should be like.

What both sides and each person doesn't quite realize is that we only have the right to make our own world the way we think it should be. No one has the absolute right to remake the everyone else's world based on their own thinking because who here is perfect enough to know how the world should be? Its not even a matter of who has the right but who has that ability when reality is just information from our five senses processed in our head? Who has the ability to control how that information is to be processed other than the individual himself?

We only have the narrow ability to make our own reality the way we, as individuals, process it. The formation of 'reality' is a combination of a person's thought process and the information they receive from the world around them. No other person's thought process can determine how your own mind rekindles that information into 'reality'. If this is not true, do you actually think we all see the color red the same way?

This is the basis of individualism.
 
Last edited:

JW Frogen

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
6,220
Reaction score
1,237
Points
155
I think the world should rain beer.

And you know what?

My world usually does.
 

Sheldon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
5,213
Reaction score
1,431
Points
48
There are three glass pyramids that dominate the city's core. On a sunny afternoon these pyramids are so bright that you can't look at them for any longer than you can look at the sun. These pyramids are the beacons of light in an otherwise bleak and filthy city, and it is these pyramids that we look to for guidance, for truth and peace and plenty.

Only a few people know what the insides of these pyramids look like, and it is that knowledge that makes those people better than the rest of us. Indeed, humans are not equal; we never have been. Our need for social hierarchy squelches that fantasy of equality. In this city with three pyramids, we know that our leaders are better than the rest of us, and therefore know what is best for us, we the Proles.

I relinquish my autonomy of self to these better people, these people who know what is best for me. They are several, but I--and all the other Proles--refer to them in the singular. They are Big Brother. They have given us Ingsoc, and we, in return, have given them our yoke of freedom. It is better this way.

It is better this way because we have less responsibility. And responsibility is a burden, not a freedom. We love Big Brother; we love him for taking this burden off our necks and wearing it Himself. He watches us, we let Him, so He can ensure that we do not bear too much weight of self-determination.

Life is easy. He gives me shelter, food, and a job. We need nothing more. We have lived this way all our lives and any luxury is a betrayal to my Brothers and Sisters.

Back in the old days, the people who believed they were free were actually fettered by greed and materialism. Now, He has freed us from those vices of humanity and we are free of greed, freed of materialism. We are free. We are better than they were, but He is and always will be better than us, because He held the key to unlock us from those chains of narcissism and selfishness. That is the ultimate freedom, and anything else we must give Him would be a fair exchange for all He has done for us.

Privacy is nothing, because He gives us shelter.

Success is nothing, because He gives us food.

Love is nothing, because He gives us work.

But the future is not here yet. I know this. The future will only be here when the first-person singular pronoun is abolished. One day, "I" will mean nothing. "We" is all that will exist.
 
Last edited:

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,327
Reaction score
2,977
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
What both sides and each person doesn't quite realize is that we only have the right to make our own world the way we think it should be. No one has the absolute right to remake the everyone else's world based on their own thinking because who here is perfect enough to know how the world should be? Its not even a matter of who has the right but who has that ability when reality is just information from our five senses processed in our head? Who has the ability to control how that information is to be processed other than the individual himself?

We only have the narrow ability to make our own reality the way we, as individuals, process it. The formation of 'reality' is a combination of a person's thought process and the information they receive from the world around them. No other person's thought process can determine how your own mind rekindles that information into 'reality'. If this is not true, do you actually think we all see the color red the same way?
a few minor points, individualism is by definition liberal. Why do you guys always confuse this item?

And I think we do all see 'red' the same, it may even part of our brain wiring, consider red lights, have you really ever wondered what the that red light really meant? Even very young children make these distinctions quickly and learn color quickly. We survived all these millennium because of some brilliant evolutionary tools.


"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6kv_eGSGZ4]YouTube - Big Rock Candy Mountain[/ame]
 
Last edited:

pcw27

Rookie
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
3
Points
1
but Christians also see the world imperfect by the spiritual beliefs that they have such as not everyone believing in Christ.
Actually a Christian should see the world as imperfect even if everyone on Earth believed in Christianity. A central tenant of Christianity is that mankind is inherently sinful.
 

pinqy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
708
Points
200
Location
Northern Virginia
Philosopher John Rawls covered this with his concept of the Veil of Ignorance: If you took a group of people who knew absolutely nothing about themselves..their age, sex, race, wealth, abilities/disabilities, sexual orientation, religion, etc...what kind of society would they come up with? No one would choose supremecy of any particular class of people if they didn't know where they fit in the scheme. No one would vote for "kill all the fags" if they didn't know if they were gay or not. And so the society they came up with would be the (near) perfect society.
 

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,327
Reaction score
2,977
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
Philosopher John Rawls covered this with his concept of the Veil of Ignorance: If you took a group of people who knew absolutely nothing about themselves..their age, sex, race, wealth, abilities/disabilities, sexual orientation, religion, etc...what kind of society would they come up with? No one would choose supremecy of any particular class of people if they didn't know where they fit in the scheme. No one would vote for "kill all the fags" if they didn't know if they were gay or not. And so the society they came up with would be the (near) perfect society.
One of my favorites.



"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
 
OP
ihopehefails

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
What both sides and each person doesn't quite realize is that we only have the right to make our own world the way we think it should be. No one has the absolute right to remake the everyone else's world based on their own thinking because who here is perfect enough to know how the world should be? Its not even a matter of who has the right but who has that ability when reality is just information from our five senses processed in our head? Who has the ability to control how that information is to be processed other than the individual himself?

We only have the narrow ability to make our own reality the way we, as individuals, process it. The formation of 'reality' is a combination of a person's thought process and the information they receive from the world around them. No other person's thought process can determine how your own mind rekindles that information into 'reality'. If this is not true, do you actually think we all see the color red the same way?
a few minor points, individualism is by definition liberal. Why do you guys always confuse this item?

And I think we do all see 'red' the same, it may even part of our brain wiring, consider red lights, have you really ever wondered what the that red light really meant? Even very young children make these distinctions quickly and learn color quickly. We survived all these millennium because of some brilliant evolutionary tools.


"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6kv_eGSGZ4]YouTube - Big Rock Candy Mountain[/ame]
Collectivism of any form is not liberal so why do liberals keep trying to assume that the person is not an atonomous unit within society? Some of us are beginning to notice that not all liberals are liberal.

The idea that we own property on an individual level establishes that each person in a society independence from every other person in that society but a person can't sustain his needs alone so society is established in order help him do that. They then trade and barter voluntarily (free will is maintained) what they have for what they need so each person begins to accumulate the things they need in order to survive through the free-trade with some other member of that society. It seems like to me that T.Paine was talking about the virtue of free-enterprise not collectivism.
 
OP
ihopehefails

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
but Christians also see the world imperfect by the spiritual beliefs that they have such as not everyone believing in Christ.
Actually a Christian should see the world as imperfect even if everyone on Earth believed in Christianity. A central tenant of Christianity is that mankind is inherently sinful.
Actually the central tenant of christianity is that it is impossible for man to be perfect.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top