3 ms·

I get it. Maybe rephrase as "systems built upon unnecessary illusions" is better. Finding forbidden love across religious or ethnic lines is a triumph of the

I get it. Maybe rephrase as "systems built upon unnecessary illusions" is better. Finding forbidden love across religious or ethnic lines is a triumph of the truth of our shared humanity over the illusion of group differences. Finding meaning in the face of heat death, well that's an illusion we all have to play along with. I think it's far easier to strip away illusions that suck than it is to build a worldview from scratch. Thankfully the former seems to be our modus operandi so most people never have to try the second option.

colinsane 4y ago
forgive me if i’m overstating things you already know, but these are lesser explored concepts for me. property/ownership is an illusion. rights (human/animal/etc) are an illusion. the clean division between child and adult (legally responsible for their actions, granted voting power), or between unborn human and legal citizen with above rights, is an illusion. achieving coherence across these illusions is what authority does. this authority creates a new illusion — the rule of law — to enforce coherence across individual variations along these illusions of rights/etc. some structure (courts, penal system, representative democracy, …) appear as apparatus to better define/protect the base illusions. but which of these illusions are “necessary”? can a society flourish without believing in property? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe that humans are exceptional when it comes to the issue of rights? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe rule of law is the way to define these illusions? these illusions are necessary to today’s state-based societies. some of them were considered unnecessary as recently as when the West was being settled, and many are outright contradictory to tribal or nomadic lifestyles of the past. if societies built upon fewer “unnecessary illusions” are to be better, more stable, then where does that put us? initially it seems at odds with historical developments, though the illusions i highlighted probably exaggerate that.

colinsane 4y ago

forgive me if i’m overstating things you already know, but these are lesser explored concepts for me. property/ownership is an illusion. rights (human/animal/etc) are an illusion. the clean division between child and adult (legally responsible for their actions, granted voting power), or between unborn human and legal citizen with above rights, is an illusion. achieving coherence across these illusions is what authority does. this authority creates a new illusion — the rule of law — to enforce coherence across individual variations along these illusions of rights/etc. some structure (courts, penal system, representative democracy, …) appear as apparatus to better define/protect the base illusions. but which of these illusions are “necessary”? can a society flourish without believing in property? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe that humans are exceptional when it comes to the issue of rights? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe rule of law is the way to define these illusions? these illusions are necessary to today’s state-based societies. some of them were considered unnecessary as recently as when the West was being settled, and many are outright contradictory to tribal or nomadic lifestyles of the past. if societies built upon fewer “unnecessary illusions” are to be better, more stable, then where does that put us? initially it seems at odds with historical developments, though the illusions i highlighted probably exaggerate that.