Comments by "AlexXx" (@alexxx4434) on "Einzelgänger"
channel.
-
99
-
98
-
33
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
While the goal of human self-improvement is a noble one, I cannot agree with the rest of his philosophy. I think it is incredibly misguded and idealistic, even dangerously so. His philosophy and ideas is a reflection of his troubled life, his coping mechanism, it seems. His use of terms like 'herd' to describe general population, dividing philosophy for "masters" and "slaves", indicates that he probably carried a superiority complex, narcissism.
And what may come a surprise for some: world in general has been following his misguided philosophy for quite some time now. Notable specific example, its use by Nazi Germany to justify atrocities against humanity, thanks to discarding the 'conventional morality'. We live in a hyper-individualistic "superhero society", where those at the top or wanting to get there discard 'conventional morality' for the sake of self-interest and to the detriment of others. Where did it lead us, to the world where those at the top are masters and the majority of the rest are slaves and "the herd"?
Morals weren't invented for nothing, it's a social construct allowing a society to function. If everyone's morals were individualistic and anti-social, then societies would not exist. "You can't live in a society and be free from the society", one famous man said. Moreover, talking about individualism, humans are products of their environment, which is some sort of society in the general case. While I do not deny free will, we humans are hugely affected by our environment. And without a society and culture humans are just another animals.
I'm also not saying morals are set in stone, it's an adjustable social construct/contract. But if we are changing them we need to bear in mind the goal of that. Are we doing it in pure egoistical self-interest or for the betterment of the humanity? Or maybe a balance between the two?
What I think is desperately needed in modern society is not more individualism but more collective effort. We won't be able to solve outstanding world crisis problems in individual fashion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Quote from Wikipedia:
Universal dialectic is an ontological idea which is closely related to the Taoist and Neo-Confucian concept of taiji or "supreme ultimate." In the West, dialecticians including Hegel explored themes that some see as remarkably similar, laying the groundwork for unification. Universal dialectic is envisioned as a single fundamental creative principle of inherent complementarity, as inspired by Heraclitus. However, rather than manifesting only cyclical change (as was the Greek view), it is progressive in nature, bringing about states of increasing complexity through a dialectical process of synthesis.
Accordingly, the term "universal dialectic" can be seen as part of an attempt to Westernize and/or modernize the concept of taiji in regard to the fundamental role and nature of complementary opposites in the ongoing self-organizing process of creation. It associates this traditionally Eastern view with the concept of dialectic advocated by Socrates, Hegel, and Marx. This Western influence adds a progressive element to the inexorable process of change, a concept which is absent in Oriental thought.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1