Eliteness

Post Reply New Topic

I intend to rise without vanity so others can sit on my shoulders.

I fail to see problems if they did not force their will upon others but instead only acted in regards to how they have a right to act. I think I do see a very whole picture.
It is, hence the quotes, as well, that seems to imply that evil people will do an evil thing even if doing the most mundane act. That is psychotic, not just going against your moral perceptions. Frankly, I see no reason to claim the superiority of one set of morals over another to a great extent unless a very strong case can be made, I don't feel that you have a strong case considering that others have argued against your morals lauding other morals as being important.
The only thing is that costly activities are usually only engaged in because of pride more so than fun of doing them, as well, the motives of people really do not matter if the result is the same. Who cares if I did something to bask in awesomeness so long as it gets done?

I tend to doubt that, the reason being that ego driven individuals are perfectly capable of doing good or great things in our world, in fact, I would imagine that many politicians have tons of ego and drive but that does not keep them from doing their job.
It still shows a reason to rise to eliteness. Usually though, the people who rise to help others usually do not intend to do so, those who claim they will rise though tend to have some ego in that they believe that they must go to their rightful place to make a difference.

"how they have a right to act" can still infringe on others. You give people WAY too much credit. WAY too much.



Where are those morals from? They ALL came from the same areas of life. Some morals are crap, some are common amoung all. The goal is to sort out the ones that are ALL common and go from there.



Realizing this is an 'aspergers' forum, I'll give you the credit that you don't understand that people who sit and soak in their glory are not very well liked. We call them 'conceited' and we often end up avoiding them. Perhaps look into that because you seem to post with great 'ego' support in your arguments, I find. You're arguments often sound 'selfish.'

As said in the movie 'A Beautiful Mind,' we all get the best results if each individual does whats best for them (as well as everyone else). Your arguments are, more or less, just the first part. Society isn't individually driven. We can be individuals, but we must work together.



I understand what you are saying but you generalize your cases a bit much. Politicians doing their job? Yikes!! ! Politicians don't do a damn thing and when they do, they take 8 times as long as it should. Follow Canadian politics - we're on the fringe of another bloody vote because our current leaders suck and guess who we are voting back in? The people who sucked LAST! They lied and stole Canadian tax payers money, thats why they were kicked out, now we're about to put them back in. Of course, that was a scandal but I'm sure someone's ego was inflated. As well, if their job is to sit around, talk, waste my money, and talk then by all means, they ARE doing a good job!

Ego driven people can do good things, I don't discount that one bit, but what does the 'ego' do for you? Nothing! It states you are better then others. Everytime you do something good, from now on, as a social experiment for yourself, state how great you are and how lucky everyone is around you and really, really mean it! This will then support your argument about how great 'ego' is. Ego is an illusion and does nothing for you. The feeling of satisfaction for doing the job well should be enough but you want more and more. Perhaps a throne where people can worship you? I dont worship people and they don't worship me.

If giving them rights is giving them credit then I will go upon that. I mean, you have said many times that you are a libertarian, that appellation in itself demands that individual action be sacred.

Morals come from cultural ideas and these cultural ideas do not necessarily have any natural validity or accuracy. Not all morals are all common. The claim that there are common morals forgets that you are in a culture that stresses certain ideas.

Yeah, I disagree with the idea that the arrogant are necessarily disliked, there are some very popular people and thinkers that are arrogant. In fact, Trump is very arrogant but the popular culture has taken a very strong liking to him. Other examples exist as well, most of the relatively liked people I know are somewhat arrogant. Conceited people can be well-liked. So what if I do "sound selfish", all of my arguments tend to stress the importance of the individual and his/her choices. I mean, I don't argue from a communal standpoint because I believe that individual action is the way the world works, that it is more efficient, and that it is a better way to look at the world and considering that our culture celebrates individualism I can't say that it goes against the common morality.
Society IS individually driven as individuals are the actors that drive our society. I cannot necessarily know what other people think or do what they'd prefer and as such I feel it would be better that I please myself and let them do the same, especially given that the best way to get my aims accomplished is to help them with theirs. Out of self-interest we do work together, and society works well, even with self-interested actors to a great extent.

Ah, but they do a better job then dictators and then other governments have done in the past. I recognize that politics can be a choice between a crap hotdog and a s**t sandwich, but this does not mean that politicians can be abolished, nor does it mean that we aren't getting some of the better people available for the job. The only issue is that politicians never existed to serve you the person, they exist to serve a greater number of the people in a society which is what they work for, and if these people are not liked then they are eliminated.

So, if ego driven people can do good things then what does it matter that they are ego driven? Not very much. Not only that but the ego can do great things depending on the person, the narcissist that I mentioned earlier MUST have things to build their ego, it is one of their deepest psychological impulses so therefore ego does a lot for him, and for others pride is something that they have. Most human beings have pride, like victories over others, etc. Most are not humble. I see a lot of people who do feel very proud of who they are and how they do and if that is fine with them then it is fine with me. Heck, I must admit that it buoys my spirits a bit whenever I find out I do better at something than the others around me and that is an ego driven feeling and I don't feel that by having that I am hurt in any way. In fact, the only way we can measure good is good relative to the population and by satisfaction from doing better one does feed ego.

You're arguing SO broadly that your points fit into both sides of the argument. Libertarians are ALL for individual rights as long as they dont step on others. If your business is corruptly running, then its infringing on others chances - this is why abolishing the government is necessary as they tend to favour large business and prevent others from growing/developing/etc. You're arguing too broadly and generally for me to understand. I only understand your points after I've applied them and you've corrected me. You want to argue almost what I am but just generally, not specifically. You are on the same page as me but not quite.



This is why I said 'some' morals, not all of them. I'm in a culture that stresses THOSE common morals.



Then we are now on separate pages. Donald Trump? Popular Culture? I have MTV blocked on my T.V. for a reason. Popular culture = love what we cram down your throats and tell you to. Pop culture is NOT a good thing - its full of followers and weak minded people that do what the herd does. I stress individuality, and so do you, yet pop culture??? If anything, its doing a great deal of harm.



Individualism and 'selfishness' are 2 completely different things. Selfishness is more ego and more greed. Individualism is 'on your own.' Individualism is positive - selfishness is negative. This is why mom and dad, while telling you to be who you are, always encourage you 'share.' Hell, your body even responds with positive feeling when you do share (listen to your body). I just got some now. As an individual, my goal at my job was to help out others. I'm a work horse but I dont talk. I'm taking on a giant work load so those who do talk (and can negotiate, etc) dont have to do work as much. As an individual, my actions are self fulling as I'm seeing my actions helping others. Their stress drops and my participation in changing the progress of the company rises. The end result? I win, my colleagues win and ultimately, the company wins. As an individual, I'm doing MY part and MY work to keep the machine working. I'm a teammate but an individual. Society was formed this way. Those who did not co-operate with society/tribes were outcasted. Now, is it selfish to feel good about your accomplishment? Depends how you got it, I guess. This will require deeper thought from me. I need a break so you can respond but I may take some time to get back, it depends how much of a break I really take (remember, last thread I said i'd stop posting like 80 times but I didnt so)

If your own selfishness is superceded by the amount of contribution you have then we have a problem. You may be better at a job then everyone else but if you're hoarding it all? Well, might as well call you Kim Jong II. He hoards all the money, his people get nothing. Are his actions correct? As an observer of actual life, no, I think not.



No argument. This sounds less selfish and more independent. People can pursue their own interests but the reason they can is because of society. One must contribute back to the machine. Give back to the people who give to you. This is unselfish. Its a 'trade off.'



Right, I'm sure we can both conclude you cannot make everyone happy. America has the right to pursuit happiness. People have now changed that to mean 'the government should just 'give' it to you.' 1 simple truth here - you cannot make anyone happy.

What do we do? We make 'no one' happy and let THEM make THEMSELVES happy. Health care? Its call insurance. Unemployment/welfare? Its called insurance. Government is nothing but a global 'Mommy and Daddy' system. Their are alternatives for every system they have and best of all, you have CHOICE. Choice is something governments take away from you and your individuality but this is another topic.

As for the Ego. I keep my mouth shut because I know when people do things, it can irritate me so I apply it elsewhere. For instance, I DON'T rub in when I'm proven 'right' as I know when people do that to me, it makes me angry (ego). I do unto others what I'd want them to do to me. If YOU hate when people do something, don't dare do it back (this is hypocrisy).

My point, with the ego, is that it doesnt drive you. Its insecurity. It contributes NOTHING but hostility from others. You still can do the same task but minus the ego. Why do you think people like to relish in their own glory? One can be happy that they 'won' or accomplished a task, but ego reinforces how great you are. Its negative and viewed as negative. You can argue all the success they have all you want, but I wouldnt want to be those people. After all, they perceive themselves as perfect yet I know they aren't.

Except that being opposed to greed isn't what libertarians typically stand for, they only stand against the use of government and its money for purposes beyond what it is necessary for. Some libertarians such as Ayn Rand have actually talked about greed as being a virtue in society and that is why I say it isn't broad.

The point I was getting at is that morality tends to be a result of teachings. In past societies many things we consider wrong today were customary, is the difference one where they were not moral and we are? Or is it one where

Is popular culture really opposed to individual choice? I think not as individuals get to choose what they see, what they listen to and what they associate with. Therefore if we at all care about the individual then he should have a right to pop culture, or whatever other culture that they seek. I stress individual as the choice maker and decider of his life, not as a thing that cannot make his own choices or decide what interests him.

I see the 2 as simply parts of the same coin, those who believe in their individuality act in a manner to promote their interests. Selfishness is just an aspect of those interests. I was more encouraged to look after myself and to avoid sharing unless there was a compelling reason to do so. I don't get that positive of a feeling when I share either, I get a positive feeling when I earn but sharing requires an amount of trust that I usually prefer not to give. As an individual your job is to trade your labor to your employee in exchange for money, if your employer does not need you then he'll fire you, if you don't need your employer then it is advised that you quit. Society was formed by individuals banding together out of their common interests, and those that did not give what they owed for protective services were kicked out if only to discourage such acts. This does not have anything to do with greed though, a greedy man could have still been a part of such a society though, so long as his actions did not threaten the safety of other individuals. In our society, greed is not necessarily a bad trait so much as an aspect of an individual.
If I hoard all of the money and others seek more and if these others are not replaceable then there is a problem, which is why a greedy man will pay his fellows. Kim Jong Il's problems do not come from the fact that he is greedy but rather from the fact that he runs a military state bent upon controlling his entire populace. North Korea would be better off if he were greedy as he would then improve the economy and the quality of life for everyone in order to further that greed. (I made this argument earlier)

The reason that they can has nothing to do with society, it has everything to do with the individual. Society improves the quality of life but it does not allow people to pursue their own interests. We give back in taxes as well, and in the workplace, unless you think that money is gotten in some manner other than serving the interests of others. One does not need to be selfless to be a valuable member of society.

No, not hypocrisy at all, there is nothing clashing between not liking something and doing it to others. There is something clashing if you have moral opposition and do it to others but if there is no moral opposition then there is no hypocrisy.
Ok, insecurity. Egotistical people can still be well liked, in fact, most people want some measure of ego and standing up. Without the ego you may not have the drive or incentive as many people act off of egotistical desires. What you want to be and don't want to be really is not important, others have different opinions.

Finally, I really don't feel like arguing this over and over again and that is what will probably continue on in this thread if either of us continue, so I will say right now that this comment is my last response to you on this specific issue in this thread.

i wouldn't cite ayn rand to back up your argument, most of her ideas were simply ridiculous nonsense to be very blunt about it.

Awesome - I think the Japanese culture was the one to go after. All this crap around us, what is it? Why do I care about space exploration? Why do I care about real estate? Why do I care about sitting in a cubicle all day - you think my purpose is to sort out excel spreadsheets all day? Find a better job? Someone else will just have to do it.

This isn't life, its a pile of crap. If I lived in the Japanese society, I could not only contribute to society but pursue my interests - their society was like that for a reason. With extreme discipline comes a functioning, honourable society. This is my model. Its 'mindful.' Western culture is obsessed with accumulation of everything. We waste everything left and right and many people live by the model of 'because I can.' No discipline, no mental strength.

Dudes, screw awesomegloriousness, he doesn't even count as a human being, and he doesn't even deserve basic rights. He's filth. His excuse for everything is greed, selfishess, ego, and just a bunch of negative crap. Lets just everyone ignore anything he ever writes here again.

I mean I think we can all agree we'd rather not live in a dictatorship or in a state of disorganized chaos, right?

Maybe he should take a peak into a culture outside of "Western" and learn to accept that our culture may not be the best in the world as the leaders and everyone thinks. There is a buddhism thread that was just started I'm sure he'll ignore but I hope he doesn't. He is after the truth and he'll best find it from the most disciplined, spiritual, wise people around.

I'm not saying 'Buddhism' has the answers but I firmly believe it has the most realistic, most logical approach to understanding the world around us. Just needs an update as a belief that is 2,500 years old may not easily relate to us. It focuses on the 'now' and 'life' and 'earth.' Other religions focus on 'God' who MAY or MAY NOT exist.

He said he was after truth so I want to make sure he can find the way to realization, hell, maybe even 'enlightenment.' If I was reborn, I'd ask to be placed near a temple as I would much better live through a 'monks' lifestyle and belief then Western societies beliefs (or lack their of).

I don't think anyone here is immune to elitism. It is safe to say most shrug off the opinions of racists, fundamentalists, and authoritarians.

Actually, I am not a rand person anyway. I just am saying that many groups have argued many different things and mention her because both she was so famous for arguing her far beliefs in ethical egoism and because she was a libertarian, so it is pretty much offering an example of a libertarian with views contradicting his.
I really wouldn't want to be Japanese, they tend towards a higher suicide rate and have their own psychological problems. Instead of having their issues out in the open though they just mask them in honor and conformity. Heck, it has been argued that they don't even have a real democracy/republic government as the same party always wins. Really, I would prefer to be free to act like I am in western society then stuck with a stick up my ass like is found in many oriental cultures.
Hmm.... lets see, I think, I have human genetics, and I have some basic human desires as well, as well, society would benefit more from giving me rights than from not doing so and because of that I would argue for the former over the latter. I could argue that you are filth as well, but frankly I have little interest in attacking you at this moment. My excuse for everything though is the interests of individuals, I don't really care about what you consider positive or negative, it is just that there is no reason for me to argue for what you consider positive as there is no disagreement but I also find little reason to restrict what some people generally consider negative.
Nobody has argued for either, and I think I have probably expressed at one time or another a distaste for both.
The reason I support western cultures over other cultures is that most of them do not show as much belief in the individual or for knowledge and improvement. I don't dislike Oriental culture, but I also think that it tends to have problems with repressing things that western culture does not tend to have. Also, I don't think I'll learn truth from people who are necessarily disciplined, spiritual, or wise, but simply those who are knowledgeable and intelligent. Discipline is not a prerequisite to knowledge although it can help, spiritual is meaningless to me and might not really be a reflection of a good characteristic, and wise is hard to quantify and I would prefer to see the steps to getting a belief AKA the logic rather than go off of wisdom.

I don't think that it necessarily does. It may be better than other religions in some regards but logic and reasoning and studies have the most answers in my mind.
I don't think that Buddhism is necessarily enlightenment and if I was reborn I'd prefer to be reborn as a child of college professors rather than near a temple(I don't believe in rebirth btw). I don't care about Western culture too much, I care about some ideas that western culture may have had but I'd rather have the knowledge that western culture has built up over time and trial.

Corvus ignore him, maybe if everyone ignores him over a long enough period of time he'll committ suicide.

Tee-hee - How funny they have a high suicide rate considering they are more WESTERNIZED these days! I doubt the suicide rate, outside of ceremonially killing yourself as a result of defeat, was as high during the times of their OWN culture. Why do you think they kill themselves? You know how high the stress level is their because of the way their society is? Its all Western influenced, baby! Might not be as 'free' as here but, judging by peoples misunderstanding on what freedom is, thats a good thing.

Dude, you are clueless to this society. There is no "stick up their ass" but they understand responsibility and discipline - its not something they TRY to be, like you think it is, its something they ARE. You know those things (responsibility, discipline) that prevent you from doing wrong? You know those things that American's don't possess a lot of (look at 'jails' and possession (read as wasting resources OR taking more then you need))?



Of course you do! I'm sure criminals everywhere argue that point enthusiastically. ALL problems, socially especially, are found at the individual level. Its why problems exist. Those problems stem from a few negative traits.



This is a fair comment, but did you ever think that those who develop the mind might act accordingly? Maybe Japanese society LOOKED strict but only by an undisciplinarian it would. Again, this isn't something they TRIED to be, its something they WERE. Its what happens when you group a bunch of mentally strong people together - you get structure, order - all at the individual level which then reflects into society and creates structure within the society itself. Little to no problems at the individual level results in better functioning members of society. Many problems at the individual level manifests itself into society which then becomes a societal problem. This is why everyone blames the government for every little problem - they are lazy and dependent and are not 'individuals' but completely reliant on a governmental system that caters to them so they dont have to. Western society, while free, has little to no discipline. Their concept of freedom is to do whatever they want - carry guns, shoot them in the air, etc. A disciplinarian a) sees no reason to do that and b) knows that is careless and pretty stupid, regardless if they have the freedom to do it or not - this is where responsibility kicks in, right about here.



Hmm, why would 'wise' people know more about truth? Well, wise is different from 'intelligence.'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wisdom
Wisdom defined: The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

Sounds like decision making to me. Well, its great to use logic but if you aren't applying it to a 'right' or a 'truth,' is it based off a logical choice? This is something for you to dive into. You see, logic and wisdom are intertwined. They feed off one another. Logic is a universal truth and if you want to better understand that, seek out the idea (and feeling, I'll tell you, from first hand experience, there is a feeling involved) of 'becoming one with the universe.' Unfortunately, no one can put this feeling into words so searching for what it 'feels like' will come up with the same response: undescribable.



I dont like calling it a religion, myself, but I do for ease. Logic is universal and Meditation is to be in touch with the universe, itself. Your MIND is considered a universe, to some. Reason can be flawed. Therefore, logic used during a flawed reason would mean the whole idea is illogical itself (I.E. lying logically is illogical as truth is logic).



Buddhism, itself, is not enlightenment - it is merely a path set up to guide you do it. As well, I didnt imply that you'd be reborn as a monk, I was merely stating that I, myself, would become one.

The thing is, Western culture was flawed in that it conquered other societies through force, "surpressed them," imposed THEIR beliefs on them, and won. What does that mean? Well, all the benefits of the last society were lost and surpressed, even if they could have helped. Basically, cultures that werent corrupted with greed became corrupted! Like the Tyrants of Europe, each individual can now be one.

You see, freedom requires responsibility and responsibility requires a mentally strong, disciplined individual or else you DO have chaos. Western society may be amazing in regards to freedom but the individuals living in that society are not mentally sound or tough. They are weak, lazy, dependent, etc. The idea of an 'individual' is as good as a persons 'talk' (which, as an aspie, you know is more often a lie then truth). Individuality doesn't exist outside of a few.

Yes, the modern Japanese culture has some western influences but the west does not necessarily have all of the stress that the Japanese tend to have, the west works less hours, we have lower standards, and we don't have high senses of honor but we do have more individual freedom and less social conformity and therefore less of the need to be what others want us to be. We take ourselves less seriously and do what we enjoy. As well, as mentioned, Japanese culture has a history of suicide so it isn't just the west's fault that these people have suicide in their minds.
People drop out of life in japanese society and hole up in their rooms. This does not happen in the west or anything like that. They have responsibility and discipline pounded into them to the point where that is how they must push and strive. Their student lives are often spent studying in cram schools in order to push themselves to the breaking point. The reason they don't have crime is like I said, they hold everything all inside, instead of criminals they have their hikikomori, individuals who lock themselves away from society for years at a time, that in itself is waste. Really, it can be argued that many of our prisons are filled needlessly anyway, so that really isn't the best judge of things from the start.

I don't care what criminals argue, but all problems are not at just the individual level but are found between the individual and society. In some cases the individual is at fault and in others it is the society. It can be argued that individuals make up societies most certainly but that does not eliminate the society as being important for analysis given the lineage of laws. All the problems that exist within society, would not exist for a man with himself, as "negative" would have no meaning then whatever he gives it. The only problem arises when man defiles other man within a society which stems from disrespect for the rule of law, not necessarily from whatever moral code. Morality outside of a rule of law isn't needed in this context.

But they are not mentally strong necessarily, they are socially conformist. You mix the 2 together and don't see the entire picture, this is something that is imposed upon them by their culture. Really, I think that this issue is that you want to make Japanese society a higher organism that it isn't. Japanese are people, and their problems exist but only hidden under the strict need for conformity and order that pervades their culture. Problems at the individual level do exist but are hidden in closed rooms and in darkness, corruption does exist and within their governments as well. The reason that people blame the government for their problems is because of changes in society that have happened in the past, and because of the nature of our large government, it does not have to do with a flaw in individualism, in the past we have had great individual freedom, and were noted for our rugged individualism and success. Rather it exists because of how things have changed. In Japanese society the role of government is played by a mommy corporate and the lack of whining comes from a desire to not express dissent rather than necessarily a desire, their government intervenes more than ours does. Responsibility only means takes responsibility for their actions, it does not preclude getting guns or even necessarily shooting them in the air.

The only thing is that wise in the conventional sense does not mean "logician" rather most definitions tend to stress common sense. Feeling and meaning don't necessarily have a correlation though, all you experience is just some mentally driven response to make you feel happier, you never became one with the universe as such is impossible and you never touched the divine, even if you did there is no proof of it and no way to back up that claim so it lacks empirical and logical validity.

Meditation in the sense of sitting down and meditating is not to be "in touch" with the universe and you cannot prove that you are in touch with anything but your senses. My mind can be considered to be whatever people want, but it is a device to interpret data and react to it. To reason is to use logic. Logic is a tool used to find truth, but it can be logical to lie and logic does not tell people that they shouldn't lie, it tells them if they shouldn't lie.

I know what you said, I also don't believe in Buddhism as you do and cannot accept it as necessarily being true.
That isn't a sign of a flaw though, western culture conquered and through those conquests benefited all of those who lived as a part of a western culture. I will admit a flaw did exist in how they destroyed some of their knowledge but at the same time, it gained their land and valuables for its own good. If anything that is a rational thing for these peoples to do in order to secure their survival and achieve their objectives. They aren't Buddhists, they don't believe in Buddhist truths so what you think is correct for them doesn't apply. Their gain does apply for their actions though.

Freedom only requires obeying the major aspects of the law, and that does not require high mental strength or great discipline, most people don't do so now as you said and we do not have chaos. Individuals exist, they are the principle actors within societies and it is a warped view that does not see that individuals are those who make the choices and who act. Individuality exists for everybody to some extent as everyone is an individual and everyone is unique and everyone is free to make choices, the major problems come from a view imposed upon others.