Seems to me that people bitch too much about what is fair, and what they deem "just" Has anyone noticed violence in nature? We call it violence, because it threatens our existence - which we are aware of. If we were not, there would be no such thing as violence, as it would just BE. Justice is an illusion. Biological organims adapt to their environments. When events foreign to the environment to which they are accustomed invade their existence, their lack of adaptation to such events greatly reduces their chances of surviving this new adversity. For instance, if you're driving a car and the car's momentum is suddenly stopped.. given sufficient momentum the human body is crushed... resulting in death. We are not accustomed to smashing into mountains. If a tree grows to adulthood with 0-10 MPH winds and is suddenly in its adulthood struck with 50 MPH winds, the likelihood it will be uprooted is much higher than the tree which has grown in varied wind conditions its whole life. If you want to run 10 miles but you weight 350 lbs., you'll need to excercise and become accustomed to the stresses your body will undertake during a ten mile run - or die of a heart attack (or pass out or whatever). It seems to me that people want to control their environments to the point of minimal adversity. Organically speaking, this seems like a mistake. With no challenges, extinction impends. Nature is not 'fair'. We are part of nature. Thus to survive we must be able to overcome that which is not fair. Pardon my retarded rant.
Well, I agree with your rant. We, the USA and most western nations, have become nothing but nations full of wimps and wussies! Baron Max
Some of us have evolved to realize that most violence among the humans is avoidable. Even much of the competition in nature is more symbolic than real.
Both statements are pretty far fetched. 1. Absense of challenge results in extinction. 2. Nature is not fair. How exactly did you come up with the first? As for the second, it cannot be proven. Furthermore, it seems more like an irrelevant cop out than acutal reality.
haha no sir and damn proud... btw u gotta know that im a very sarcastic person as u found out in the other thread jlocke or w.e
I wouldn't say that life is about chasing justice... would you? If you would, then there are a myriad of reasons you might give to justify your quest. And that's not to say you can't make your illusion real in your view of the world. But another reason to chase illusions is: Because we choose to survive, and we need our illusions to do so. However well they correspond with das din en sich, (pardon if I murder that every time) they are what we have to work with. I suppose "justice is an illusion" is a bit of a misrepresenation of something or other that I was thinking, but it worked at the time. What I mean is that everyone has their own idea of justice, even if many have crossover. Many people are NOT just (and even if they are, is quite possibly not just to you as you see it), as whatever yields the highest in their personal profit margin (be it emotional gratification or other, which is sometimes whatever they deem to be justice) will necessarily sway them in whatever decision to which you refer. So as I see it, justice is an illusion. Of course you're not obligated to agree. Things don't have to be exactly fair for one to survive (even happily).
So, are you saying that since justice is an illusion we should forget it? We have "justice" to ensure cooperation among ourselves; without it, we wouldn't get too far. I don't think one can say whether nature is fair or not. We have no power to make it follow our laws. When we say "world isn't fair," "life isn't fair," we usually refer to relations among humans. Referring the same way to chance and nature is a useless rant, and we know it in the back of our heads. I agree, however, that we have grown to expect each other to be mushy. The book worms keep saying that violence, lack of consideration for the poor, etc, is "unethical." Everything everywhere has to be the same, where only one culture's definition of "fair" is valid, and better if everything is served on a silver plate to everybody. In this environment, only naive brainy weaklings can grow. Shortly, we are approaching life in Nerd Land. Aren't you glad? Justice needs to be kept among us, humans, but only in such a way that we don't forget it's a mere arrangement.
Quit the paranoiac bulls**t. Law is agreement among ourselves; justice means that the law is followed, and an injustice occurs when the law is not followed. There's no illusion, the law is very real. There's no fixed, "correct" law, since the rules of cooperation are culture-bound; however, there are some rules that just happen to work very well, so they may be present in all societies. The enlightenment happened, you know. That the authorities still attempt to manipulate the masses is a whole other issue. If you read into history, laws were often written because an issue was perceived and needed to be dealt with in a manner that would instill order and moral satisfaction in a community.
The world is not just. Life is not fair. Justice is an illusion. Everybody is out for their own self interest. Our concepts of justice are nothing more than a survival mechanism. Conflict is necessary. GIVE ME A BREAK. There is an illusion. It is an illusion of the docile. The world is not just so we shall be docile. The world is not just so we should accpet our fate, and step on those less fit so that we may prosper. Survival of the fittest. This is the illusion. You apply your own lack of control over yourself to all others. Take control of yourself. Take control of your actions. You are not meant to be some ninny overcoming various injustices to survive. Get out of the swamp that surrounds you, and get into yourself. Clear the mind. Lose the weight. Take hold of your emotions, and therefore your intelligence. Be at one with your universe. Life and nature cannot be fair or unfair. Fairness is not a quality that can be applied to reality. That is where your illusion resides.
Yes. Fromthedarksea, sorry to team up against you, but justice is definitely not an illusion. What exactly is your basis for saying so?
No, I'm saying it isn't what it seems, that it's a prop of sorts. It's a cartoon of its initial inception. Is there justice in the gazelle dying in the chase from the lion? Are humans really so different? We're exactly complicated apes. We have an abstract capacity in which to rationalize our behavior. Does that really separate us from nature, or just make us more complicated than our counterparts of lesser abstract capacity? I think you're talking about laws, which are intended to satiate the illusion and minimize chaos. *sigh* I don't understand people's incessant need to separate humanity from nature, but whatever. We also have no power to make you follow our laws if we can't irrefutably catch you breaking them. We also quite often have no power to irrefutably catch you doing anything. We also accept unreliable, twisted, corrupted agents as representative of historical record. "I saw that guy murder someone"... which may be true, but there is no means by which to verify. Innocent folks DO go to jail and die for the cost of "justice". Where is the justice for them? Laws themselves are often created at the hands of people who corrupt it to their own ends... which I do not necessarily blame them for, but regardless... that is not justice as I see it, yet as you seem to put it.. it is necessarily. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Please understand, I'm not saying "rip it all down". I'm saying "see it for what it is". Laws are necessary for societal stability, but they are not necesarily justice. They are the most reasonable facimile thereof that humanity can provide. It'll have to do. I'll keep the horde in line. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, thinking of this in terms of animals, isn't this the only means by which those pussies have to make a power play? That's in line with the point. It is definately bullshit to a great degree, but it's the best thing going. Just watch your cornhole while the pussies make their play.
I think that the whole argument is based on a false assumption. That a 'weak' society will create 'weak' people. As we have seen during history many times, when a society is suddenly thrown into a new 'harsh' situation, such as for instance a civil war, the beast in man is awoken again. Let's remember for instance what happened in Yugoslavia. At one point a perfectly normal European country known for its friendly people, the next moment a slaughterhouse filled with vile monstrosities and inhumane acts. I rest my case.
A weak society will create weak people is an impossibility. Society does not create people. People create society. I do not know why people wish to cling so dearly to backwards paradigm. Progressive individuals make for a progressive society. A society in which 1% of the individuals are not progressive is a society that is 99% progressive. Petty examples of injustice does not mean that justice does not exist. If justice was an illusion, injustice would be too an illusion. The facade is in the weak illusion that speaking out against injustice is irrelevant. Injustice does exist. When people are not treated with fairness, their rights are violated. You propose people accept thier mistreatment becuase fairness and justice does not exist. What a load of bull.
I think what he meant was that what about the people that come out of that society? Is their personally and morals not a direct result from that society? JLocke
Absolutely not. 1. Society does not create morals. They may abide by them or not. 2. Society is an influence, but not as you portray, the influence. To be more clear: Social surroundings can have an affect on the individual's perception. Social surroundings are not the sole affect on the individual's perception. Social surroundings do not make the individual. While society has limited affect on the individual, the individual has absolute affect on society.
What difference does it make? You still have not made any clear point. Laws are different accross the board. Laws are the same accross the board. Either way, what difference would it make? What is your proposition?
