Sometimes I wonder if it was always like that or not. I mean, of course I think we always wanted something like the most adequate means for whatever need we have, but all the “generally-wanting-even-more” might have started with agriculture and the ability to hoard a whole shitload of grain and stuff… at some point people began to think, “well, why only have enough for the winter, more is always better, no”, so it started to develop into the close-to-ultimate basic human ideology?
Actually no…I’ve attempted to write a few different things in here and I digress…not today Satan.
So is it actually about the performance, or just chest-thumping bragging rights?
It’s about status, isn’t it? Having a shinier toy than someone else. But sadly there’s always a shinier toy somewhere else, if not now then soon, so no one wins that game.
Indeed no one does. To me, I think it’s a beautiful, luxurious car that also performs beyond any reasonable needs.
For a car that I would actually drive hard, I’d probably pick up something late model and modify it for track use. C5 corvettes, Mazda Miatas, older Mini Coopers would all be options. I hope to build a Pike’s Peak car sometime next decade and will probably choose a known, documented, base to modify to my needs.
hmm i think the point of Bugatti,mercedes,BMW,porche,ferrari etc.is if you are not a race car driver.then it is most likely status symbol!for the super wealthy,it is never enough.they have a Superior inferiority complex.
they know deep down they are greedy needy shitbags profiting off regular peoples suffering.
so they have to show off and claim success.none of these cars would be practical for me.
you really cant drive them for what they are.too wide too low blind spots galore.
i will take a gti or bmw one m,ford focus honda etc.you can drive them like a mad man!
I’d argue it started with exploration. The first time we walked over a hill, thought about all the land we could see could give us, and then we decided to walk over the next hill anyways. That day we decided to have more.
I think there’s an assumption here that everyone is that way. The reality is that only a small fraction of people are the pioneer sorts who boldly go where no one has gone before, while most of the rest of us mind the home front and wish them well. The pioneers usually don’t come back.
So true!i am of that type.i have explored the limits of my own capabilities.
quite a bit before i was 21.its been one hall of a journey for me!
i have a short dunno poem or something that puts things in perspective.
can’t find it at the moment.i
but i have fallen short at times,i have boldly overstepped my abilities and paid the price.
however i have learned much,and have become wiser,and truly look at the world not with jaded perception,
but of wonder.whats next?
This reminded me of these lines from Machiavelli:
“…nature has created men in such a way that they can desire everything but are unable to attain everything, so that their desire is always greater than their power of acquisition, and discontent with what they possess and a lack of satisfaction are the result.”
(Discourses on Livy, Book I.37.)
Yeah, interesting point, maybe - but I would think that in prehistory, that was often due to basic needs, changing environments, natural pattenrs, getting away from danger and so on. Also, the hoarding of moar, moar, moar of the same seems to be different to me from the idea of finding something new, better, less dangerous and so on, which cold motivate exploration imho.
Same sentiments of never enough/moar… can also be used for personal excellence…but the dark side is constant goal post shifting…but most of the self help stuff out there is a bs scam designed to get people to forfeit their money…but practicing personal excellence like fitness goals…or learning a new skill…etc…can help…so…to each their own
Yeah, but I would argue that personal excellence is rarely about moar moar moar of the same - finetuning existing skills is surely one aspect of it and might go into that direciton a bit, but in general, I would say it is often more about developing new skills, integrating and synthesizing different areas of knowledge or aspects of reality, different viewpoints and so on… So I would say the similarity is stronger for the exploration aspect WN refered to than the hoarding/accumulation aspect I was on about.
For some but not a full counter-argument, see Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew. Largely his take is that there was quite a lot of variation in Judaism as Jesus would have grown up in. I remember thinking in reading it, pre-printing press, or mass distribution ever thereof, orthodoxy of any type was just practically hard.
This is true, and why I wrote what I wrote about Matthew. This is not a text which would find sympathy with Judaism in Judea, especially in calling on the authority of Zoroastrian priests (magi) for validation of divinity.
That might be possible in a sect in Egypt which once centered around the restorationist Judaism of Onius the IV, but it wouldn’t be true of Judaism in Judea; regardless of the variation. Samaria had more tolerant leanings, and an argument might be made for this provenance due to the Samaritan tradition of the same religion (since Samaritans are descendants of the Kingdom of Israel) having more tolerance toward non-Judaic inclusions, but there is so far no indication that I’m aware of that Samaritans found greater value in Zoroastrian priests than their own priests. The most that can be said is that they would be less likely to spit on the ground at the idea than their southern relatives.
I don’t know where else to post this - but I’ve come back to it over the years and it’s a really fascinating delve.
Even though all of this is probably inaccurate, and pure speculation - that’s what makes it a curious breakdown.
in the vein of anti establishment ideology it effectively pits people against each other…and its cousin anarchy incorrectly assumes that without laws people will naturally behave properly because people are somewhat born with a blank slate and somewhat assume their surroundings to a degree…
Both types of ideology are often used to distort ones perspective which will encourage nefarious/self destructive behavior due to having a lack of a foundation by having loose standards and loose morals…
As a result the individual can become isolated from the general population and maybe forced to play a negative antagonistic role…as opposed to a role that generates a positive change/contribution…
The anti establishment/anarchist ideology is also used to create choas allowing someone else to gain power by twisting perception and twisting culture…
Conversely if the establishment is unable to function and is hypocritical/oppressive towards individuals then the anti establishment ideology is justified…but if the establishment allows for the reasonable expression of free will…then the anti establishment ideology itself is unwarranted and somewhat hypocritical/being used for nefarious purposes…
If the establishment needs to be checked, then keep it in check by expressing ones voice, no reason to destroy something in the name of progress…destruction isnt progress…
Woah, that changed while I was reading it. Tripped me out.
Also, I’m not thrilled most days with how my life has turned out thus far (I didn’t graduate with honors from business school to make less money than my college dropout buddy who drives a delivery van for Amazon). Of course, I have to be mostly to blame, but honestly I’m getting to the point where instead of trying to figure out what to do I just say to myself “yep you fucked it up real good, and “the establishment” just helped you get here, just wait and die, that’s all the establishment thinks you’re good for now”. So yeah, the establishment can go eff itself in the A. I want to put that energy into some punk, but idk how to put that into song-y words. Hell, I can’t bring myself to put that into academic words, I studied economics for two years and I get dizzy thinking about the words that would describe my situation. It hurts. I hurt.
Sorry that’s not philosophy but I guess I needed a confession.
Nah, you know what, here’s some philosophy, from a practical perspective. John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke came up with what he thought were the fundamental rights of any person: the right to life (that is, you shouldn’t face threats to your life without very good reason, if at all) , the right to liberty (that is the ability to do as you please, when you please, for reasons you please), and the right to property (this isn’t saying so much that everyone should get to own things or the same amount of things, but that they have the choice, given their ability, to own things that they can be reasonably sure will not suddenly belong to someone else for any reason). Rousseau came up with the social contract, which says that in exchange for helping to protect those rights, the citizens enter in an agreement with their government in which they give up some of their liberty (and these days some property rights too, whether that be in taxes or national ownership of some industries, and possibly life in the case of capital punishment) in exchange for the protection of your largely unmolested rights to life, liberty, and property.
Why do I say that this philosophy is practical? Well, it came about in a time of unprecedented growth in the world economy and human knowledge, and the founding fathers of America largely followed this philosophy in setting up the U.S. (to the extent that our declaration of independence guarantees us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - because Thomas Jefferson thought property was such a given right it didn’t need specifying), which quickly grew (from a historical perspective) to become a major world power and the template for most governments in the world today. If that’s not practical success, I don’t know what is.
So how does this inform my take on any philosophy or how government should be structured today? It’s simple - whatever best protects the life, liberty, and property of its individual citizens and makes a reasonable social contract with them is the best. There’s a lot of room for different takes on government, big or small, that could make that happen.
Gotta network…interning…its a combination of having a good reputation and knowing the right people…alternatively you could go into the trades…but sometimes you have to do side jobs along your main job to make enough…basically now it’s all computers…and it’s all about what you can bring to the table.
Other times it’s not within your power because companies try to maintain profitability making certain moves to remain valuable to shareholders and investors…basically its hustling and hustling is the art of providing a luxury/service and making it attractive enough and making people think they need it but really do…a school cant teach you street smarts…and to get a job you sometimes have to blag your way in and make people think that they need you because you provide a valuable unique service or have access to resources that they think they need…so yea…also nowadays your competing with the world…so…it depends…you could go into sales…but you really have to have the personality…and I assume online shopping is elimanating the need for salespeople…other than that I assume it’s mostly customer service and handling logistics and employees…business is just legitimate organized crime…or you could be an accountant or a corporate lawyer…shrug.
responsibility and accountability going hand in hand
failure at one or the other leads to certain circumstances
regardless of the playing field or the players
without it tumors will go grow
and hypocrisy will run rampant
not everything is uniform
or adheres to a certain set of rules
and is sometimes grey
i guess its a bit of a paradox.
or not depending upon certain things
or maybe its more of a cogito ergo sum type of thing.
i guess everyone has a different understanding of things being that everyones situation is different…
and the circumstances surrounding what a person faces in conjuction with individual behavior determines the path and whatever results…
so to conclude the train of thought…
everything is dependant on personal interpretation and what you decide to do, a person does have free will…however everything does has some sort of a trade off effect. with free will you can either choose to do good or the do the opposite but whatever you decide to do will be of your own design regardless of whatever influence or temptation.
yup nothing new…
So, would you say that in a system where you have strong free speech laws and ideas, anti-establishment ideas are “unwarranted and somewhat hypocritical/being used for nefarious purposes” in contrast to systems where you have limited free speech, disregarding anything else that is going on? I don’t even see the conneciton tbh - why would it depend on the existence of free speech? For instance, if you have free speech and nobody is listening to it because of dominant propaganda or because the public doesn’t have a say in important decisions in that country anyways, how does free speech directly determine the evaluation of anti-establishment ideas? On the other hand, if you have restricted free speech with regard to certain ideas, but also strong influence of public opinion on actual decisions and a high responsiveness of the political system, why would that justify anti-establishment ideas in that context? Just focusing on the existence of free speech as some kind of super-determinant and directly using it alone to decide if anti-establishment ideas make sense in a given context is a really strange idea imho.