7 ms·

More and more, I'm starting to come to the awful conclusion that most people have very little control over how their lives go. They maybe have a few key decisio

More and more, I'm starting to come to the awful conclusion that most people have very little control over how their lives go. They maybe have a few key decision points in their life - but maybe not all that many. And the rest is autopilot. They watch some subset of the new movies, new TV programs, websites they stumble across. They eat whatever's more or less served near them and eaten by people they associate with. They pick the political party that matches their friends and relatives, or no party, or maybe they pick up a book that has an emotional impact on them and swear loyalty to that. Maybe. I hate this idea, because it seems to subtly advocate for totalitarianism, which I've been against my whole life. But then there's nagging voice that says, "well, just ban all the food that's unhealthy, and people will eat better..." - but we know where that road leads. sigh It's strange being someone who strives to be self reliant, studies and analyzes to make ethics from scratch, constantly examines and re-examines everything... I think there exists less people like this than I originally thought. No, less than that. Okay, divide that number by 10 again. Less than that, even? Maybe. Scary thoughts. I'm going to go eat some oatmeal now.

ryandvm 16y ago
You cannot propel yourself forward by patting your own back.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
chc 16y ago
The big problem with totalitarianism, in practice, is that there is no perfect leader (and even if there were, his or her successors would not be). Any defense of totalitarianism is totally dependent on believing the Platonic noble lie that your leaders are simply better than you, which violates what we know of human nature. If you decide to do everything Bob tells you, sure, he might force you to eat right — but he'll also force you to wash his car and leave your wife with him for the weekend.
ihodes 16y ago
Actually, scarier yet is whatever conclusions you seem to arrive at (or, more likely, those which you seem to asymptotically approach) will be baseless and unimportant on an absolute scale: you have to measure the worth of what you create against a scale you do not control. When you can point to an ought that logically follows from an is, that'll be the most important day in anyone's lives. In the meantime, I'm philosophically opposed to stamping any sort of judgement on the way people lead their lives. There's no reason to condemn anyone for not desiring to learn or to think critically; whatever axiomatic value you try to use as a measuring stick will twist and turn and fail on close inspection: it'll be a subjective measure. Humans are animals, and going about our business in a frictionless manner is a natural thing to do. Some people detect friction where others see no problem, and from them we see improvement in the sciences and in thought—improvement in the sense that we seem to know more—and those are the people we on HN generally praise. Lest I come off as a total weirdo, I am for "progress" and "knowledge" and "health" and all that jazz, but I try to keep my pragmatic life as separate from my philosophical life as possible. It's safer that way.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 16y ago
  > When you can point to an ought that logically follows from an is, that'll be the most important day in anyone's lives. There is a train heading for you, therefore you ought to get off the tracks. (EDIT: And yes, I do recognize Hume's fork when I see it. I'm just glad I'm not sitting at a circular table with him, fighting over who gets to use it.)
  - ihodes 16y ago
    Again, it's safer to separate my actual life from my philosophy: why get off the track? Death is inevitable, and not inherently worse than life. Hume's a tricky bastard, and with enough Nietzsche to back him up, depressingly formidable. So I arbitrarily give value to certain things in pursuit of a pleasant system of beliefs and a nice-feeling way of going about life.
klbarry 16y ago
"It's strange being someone who strives to be self reliant, studies and analyzes to make ethics from scratch, constantly examines and re-examines everything... I think there exists less people like this than I originally thought. No, less than that. Okay, divide that number by 10 again." Most people may not read Emerson, Fromm, Aquinas, Stace, Russel etc but they sure do learn from life experiences on ethics, think about the implications of things and act on those things. Many, many people strive to be self reliant, as well. Once a group like HN starts saying, "God, if only other people were as smart as us", we're reaching a danger zone where we should always take a very close look before self adulating.
archgoon 16y ago
>"well, just ban all the food that's unhealthy, and people will eat better..." - but we know where that road leads. Modern Europe?
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Where in "Modern Europe" have they banned all the unhealthy foods?
  - archgoon 16y ago
    Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bovine growth hormone, etc. I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      "Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats" Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.
      - archgoon 16y ago
        Really not particularly relevant. Funny, but misses the point that regulating food does not make you into a totalitarian state.
        Semiapies 16y ago
        Misses the point that "regulating food" and "banning all the unhealthy foods" are not at all the same thing. As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.
    - 16y ago
eitally 16y ago
This is why charity (actually helping others, not just blindly writing checks) is so much more rewarding than [egotistical] introspection. You can always help someone else, even if it isn't clear how you can help yourself.
yters 16y ago
Monarchy has historically been the preferred form of government among the elite.

ryandvm 16y ago

You cannot propel yourself forward by patting your own back.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

chc 16y ago

The big problem with totalitarianism, in practice, is that there is no perfect leader (and even if there were, his or her successors would not be). Any defense of totalitarianism is totally dependent on believing the Platonic noble lie that your leaders are simply better than you, which violates what we know of human nature. If you decide to do everything Bob tells you, sure, he might force you to eat right — but he'll also force you to wash his car and leave your wife with him for the weekend.

ihodes 16y ago

Actually, scarier yet is whatever conclusions you seem to arrive at (or, more likely, those which you seem to asymptotically approach) will be baseless and unimportant on an absolute scale: you have to measure the worth of what you create against a scale you do not control. When you can point to an ought that logically follows from an is, that'll be the most important day in anyone's lives. In the meantime, I'm philosophically opposed to stamping any sort of judgement on the way people lead their lives. There's no reason to condemn anyone for not desiring to learn or to think critically; whatever axiomatic value you try to use as a measuring stick will twist and turn and fail on close inspection: it'll be a subjective measure. Humans are animals, and going about our business in a frictionless manner is a natural thing to do. Some people detect friction where others see no problem, and from them we see improvement in the sciences and in thought—improvement in the sense that we seem to know more—and those are the people we on HN generally praise. Lest I come off as a total weirdo, I am for "progress" and "knowledge" and "health" and all that jazz, but I try to keep my pragmatic life as separate from my philosophical life as possible. It's safer that way.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 16y ago
> When you can point to an ought that logically follows from an is, that'll be the most important day in anyone's lives. There is a train heading for you, therefore you ought to get off the tracks. (EDIT: And yes, I do recognize Hume's fork when I see it. I'm just glad I'm not sitting at a circular table with him, fighting over who gets to use it.)
- ihodes 16y ago
  Again, it's safer to separate my actual life from my philosophy: why get off the track? Death is inevitable, and not inherently worse than life. Hume's a tricky bastard, and with enough Nietzsche to back him up, depressingly formidable. So I arbitrarily give value to certain things in pursuit of a pleasant system of beliefs and a nice-feeling way of going about life.

klbarry 16y ago

"It's strange being someone who strives to be self reliant, studies and analyzes to make ethics from scratch, constantly examines and re-examines everything... I think there exists less people like this than I originally thought. No, less than that. Okay, divide that number by 10 again." Most people may not read Emerson, Fromm, Aquinas, Stace, Russel etc but they sure do learn from life experiences on ethics, think about the implications of things and act on those things. Many, many people strive to be self reliant, as well. Once a group like HN starts saying, "God, if only other people were as smart as us", we're reaching a danger zone where we should always take a very close look before self adulating.

archgoon 16y ago

>"well, just ban all the food that's unhealthy, and people will eat better..." - but we know where that road leads. Modern Europe?

Semiapies 16y ago
Where in "Modern Europe" have they banned all the unhealthy foods?
- archgoon 16y ago
  Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bovine growth hormone, etc. I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    "Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats" Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.
    - archgoon 16y ago
      Really not particularly relevant. Funny, but misses the point that regulating food does not make you into a totalitarian state.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        Misses the point that "regulating food" and "banning all the unhealthy foods" are not at all the same thing. As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.
  - 16y ago

eitally 16y ago

This is why charity (actually helping others, not just blindly writing checks) is so much more rewarding than [egotistical] introspection. You can always help someone else, even if it isn't clear how you can help yourself.

yters 16y ago

Monarchy has historically been the preferred form of government among the elite.