The Philosophy Thread

[Schism]

enforcement

The sword of social shaming shines with an invisible flame.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Shame is an interesting word. Is its origin inside or outside of a person?

 

[Stuart Dren]

And it's interesting she is a woman. What is the significance of that?

I don't know. For some reason when I think of 'woman' as a symbol, wrath is the first thing that comes to mind. But wrath is generally contrary to civilized justice.

Purity?

 

[Stuart Dren]

The sword of social shaming shines with an invisible flame.

I wonder about that. Shame, to me, is toothless without exile, which isn't really a thing anymore.

 

[Louanne Learning]

For some reason when I think of 'woman' as a symbol, wrath is the first thing that comes to mind.

lol, well, this goes against the mother earth goddess archetype

 

[Stuart Dren]

lol, well, this goes against the mother earth goddess archetype

That's what I think of second.

 

[Trish]

I wonder about that. Shame, to me, is toothless without exile, which isn't really a thing anymore.

Is it though? Shame is far more dangerous when it's internalized than it is by outside forces. And there's plenty of that in existence.

 

[Louanne Learning]

They say the difference between guilt and shame is that with guilt, you feel bad about something you did (the behavior) and with shame you feel bad about who you are "I am bad."

I think guilt can be constructive, but shame is destructive. No room for improvement?

Shame is far more dangerous when it's internalized than it is by outside forces

Totally agree. it judges the person, not the behavior

 

[Trish]

lol, well, this goes against the mother earth goddess archetype

Does it? What about earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, etc.?

 

[Stuart Dren]

Is it though? Shame is far more dangerous when it's internalized than it is by outside forces. And there's plenty of that in existence.

I think of guilt more as the internally driven one, and shame as the external one. Some say the narcissists feel shame but not guilt.

They say the difference between guilt and shame is that with guilt, you feel bad about something you did (the behavior) and with shame you feel bad about who you are "I am bad."

This seems about right. However, if no one knows, and know one will ever know, will you still feel shame?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Does it? What about earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, etc.?

In mythology, the mother earth goddess is normally associated with fertility / motherhood / creation

gods of death and destruction are difference archetypes

 

[Louanne Learning]

Some say the narcissists feel shame but not guilt.

That's interesting. they say the primary motivator of narcissists is self-hatred

 

[Trish]

I think of guilt more as the internally driven one, and shame as the external one. Some say the narcissists feel shame but not guilt.

This seems about right. However, if no one knows, and know one will ever know, will you still feel shame?

To my knowledge, it is reversed. Guilt is generally thought to be the external one with social accountability. Shame is an intense internal feeling of the person themselves being flawed.

In mythology, the mother earth goddess is normally associated with fertility / motherhood / creation

gods of death and destruction are difference archetypes

I think if you research Gaia you'll find differently. "Force of nature" isn't just a colloquialism.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Gaia you'll find differently.

Interesting! I was thinking more along the lines of Celtic and American Indigenous mythology

 

[Trish]

American Indigenous mythology

Even in this case, she's often not seen as wrathful, but she is an entity of reciprocity. Take too much and she'll stop giving. Mistreat and she will correct you. A different way of saying it, but still not only good in all ways.

 

[Schism]

I wonder about that. Shame, to me, is toothless without exile, which isn't really a thing anymore.

I'm not so sure it is toothless without exile, though it can create the conditions for self-imposed exile.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Should the highest goals of any political system be justice or morality? Or something else?

Neither. A political system should not legislate morality. Just look at Prohibition for the last time this regrettable experiment was tried.

Legislating justice can create its own problems, because 'justice' as a word is vague. It means so many things to so many people, depending on what legal code they know, which country they're from, and (in extreme cases) what century they're living in. (One can make the argument that some countries' legal codes belong in a previous century, but never mind).

Before a political system can create justice, it must decide what the values it shares with the votes are. Is it an absolutist monarchy? Or a constitutional one? Is it an autocracy, or a republic? A democracy or a theocracy? All of these derive 'justice' from different sources.

Nevertheless, the highest goal of any political system -- monarchy, democracy, autocracy or whatever - is, was, and always has been its own survival. As Sir Humphrey suggests in his iconic line: "Government isn't about morality. It's about stability. Keeping things going, preventing anarchy, stopping society falling to bits. Still being here tomorrow." and adds "Government is not about good or evil, only order or chaos."

For any ardent visionary politician (like Hacker) elected to office for a finite period of time, realizing that pragmatic and slow progression is the actual purpose of government must be a thankless revelation. However, Humphrey is correct; for the better part of history, the general endeavour and welfare of humanity have been most abundant in periods of stability and incremental development, not in periods of upheaval, revolution or war.

It must be stated, though, that the latter make for appealing dramatic stories, and humanity does enjoy a good story.

The sword of social shaming shines with an invisible flame.

It may do, but how do you shame those people who have no internal source of shame? (See below).

That's interesting. they say the primary motivator of narcissists is self-hatred

I'm not sure who "they" are, but the books I've read about the modus operandi of criminals - and after all, what are criminals motivated by if not narcissism? - all point to one thing: the primary motivator of narcissists is self-love, not self-hatred.

Here's how it works: a narcissist thinks of himself first, to the point of putting himself above other people or outside the rest of the community. In tiny doses, this is healthy; we all need to take care of ourselves (inasmuch as clothing, personal cleanliness, food etc.) are concerned. No-one will provide that to us, at least not for free.

But when this "self-interest" (I'm sure that's the wrong word, but it's nearly 1am here and I'm not sure what else to call it) gets out of control, the narcissist takes it a step further and says (in essence): "I am better/smarter/stronger/etc. than you, therefore, I deserve your stuff." This is where we see narcissism become a crime - in order of severity, theft, rape, murder, and war (among other crimes).

In short, to use Freud's simplified but overall helpful terms: a narcissist's Id (the Impulsive Child) runs rampant, ignoring the Ego (the Mediating Parent) and kills the Superego (the Moral Judge). A narcissist takes shortcuts because he thinks he deserves everything, i.e. "GIMME THAT IT'S MINE!" etc.

 

[Louanne Learning]

the highest goal of any political system -- monarchy, democracy, autocracy or whatever - is, was, and always has been its own survival.

I remember in my first lecture at university in my first-year Politics course, the professor proclaimed, "The primary goal of any and all political parties is to get elected."

Yes, but I'm not sure this fits the idea of the "highest goal" or rather "the most pragmatic goal"

Okay, so once elected, what then should the goals of the government be?

If the goal is only to keep office, that is ripe for corruption. I cannot call that a "high goal."

 

[Riddley Walker]

Goverments role should be to prevent the strong from devouring the weak.

 

[Homer Potvin]

We're approaching the third rail on the political discussions here, folks. As I mentioned in another thread just now, this is a writing forum, and it's beginning to bloat with a lot of content that has nothing to do with writing. That needs to stop, please. Nothing even remotely related to politics or controversary of any kind unless it pertain directly to writing, such as AI.

And I'm really not a fan of philosophy, but I have let it persist. Keep it non-political or even better, take all philosophical discussions to a philosophy forum.