8
   

The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:54 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It's all about money, Glenn.

You're preaching to the choir.

However, it goes way beyond money. In the great Monopoly game called the world, those who own the properties, the railroads, and the utilities eventually came to the place where they couldn’t stand the static nature of the game. They have everything they could ever want in a hundred lifetimes, but it’s not enough because they have psychological problems. So then fulfillment became a matter of making wars and taking what the other owners have. They’re like extremely developed infants; think “terrible twos.” And they need the meek to use as laborers and cannon fodder. Symbiotic relationship!


Wow. That's a pretty fucked up way to see the world. You should see someone about that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:56 pm
@Tuna,
There are also positives to have the 1% own 90% of the wealth. It controls inflation. Too much money chasing a limited supply can only result in inflation.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:57 pm
@McGentrix,
And perhaps you should see someone about learning to formulate a rebuttal that doesn't consist of nothing but an insult.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 01:00 am

Quote:
“Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.” (Bertrand Russell)


Ask yourself this, eh? One of two people is gunna get pistol whipped on the street and have his wallet, shoes, rings, and watch stolen. One of two is gunna git them shoes, watch, and things. Let's call them 1 (the victim) and 2 (the criminal).

Which one would you more soon rather be, 1 or 2?

Purty simple, aint it?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 10:43 am
@layman,
Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.

That's another way of saying that following the example of the criminal is the solution to being a victim? Like, if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

But then you've allowed the criminal whose example you have chosen to follow to also steal your integrity.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 12:18 pm
@Glennn,
They lacked integrity to begin with when they believe they should following the example of the criminal.
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 07:13 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.

That's another way of saying that following the example of the criminal is the solution to being a victim? Like, if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

But then you've allowed the criminal whose example you have chosen to follow to also steal your integrity.

Loss of integrity doesn't happen like that. It creeps up on you like a grey mist. You sit down at the end of a wild and reckless day and then it hits you. Upon refection, you realize that you knew you were treading into the mist, but you told yourself that you're a good person, so there's nothing to worry about.

You realize that it was that brass ring that got you. It was that voice saying "This is your only chance. Stiffen your upper lip. Do what you have to do."

In that moment you have a choice. You can say it's okay if you go to your grave and never get what you really wanted. The pay off will be that you close your eyes for the last time and know that you didn't make the world a little bit more shitty. Or... you can become numb and blind and blunder forward into the mist perhaps to one day find yourself offering your kingdom for a horse.

Or so I've heard.



Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 07:54 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
Loss of integrity doesn't happen like that.


Yes it does. To follow the example of the criminal as a solution to being a victim is to willingly forfeit your integrity.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 07:59 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Loss of integrity doesn't happen like that.


Yes it does. To follow the example of the criminal as a solution to being a victim is to willingly forfeit your integrity.

You speak from experience? You know what it means to betray your own integrity?

Details please.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:05 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
You know what it means to betray your own integrity?

Yes, I do. And I believe you just quoted me giving an example.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:08 pm
@Glennn,
So you followed the example of the criminal?

Props to you. Honestly, you don't come across as having that kind of wisdom.. but I don't know you well.

So how did you let it go?
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:18 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
So you followed the example of the criminal?

You're coming across as someone who isn't paying attention to what you're reading. You asked: "You know what it means to betray your own integrity?"

I told you that I do know what it means. However, I did not say that I have followed the example of the criminal. You projected that onto me because of your lack of wisdom when it comes to interpreting what you're hearing. All I did was offer you an example of betraying your own integrity. You heard what you wanted to hear.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:35 pm
@Glennn,
I wasn't attacking you, Glenn. I was being honest.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:38 pm
@Tuna,
I never said you were attacking me. I said that you were attributing something to me that I did not say. I'm just being honest with you.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2015 08:40 pm
@Glennn,
OK. My mistake. Vaya con dios.
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2015 07:10 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

There are also positives to have the 1% own 90% of the wealth. It controls inflation. Too much money chasing a limited supply can only result in inflation.

I was confused there. The top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the US. A lot of things influence the size of the money supply including the Fed, but I can see how the wealth of the top 1% would tend to shrink it.

Wouldn't you agree that wealth inequality happens because people, broadly speaking, accept social inequality?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2015 10:01 am
In any given contest the ruthless or the meek can win. If you are positing a hypothetical situation where it's a fang & claw situation with holding onto life as the goal, then 9 times out of 10 the ruthless will win, and the one time the meek wins it will because he or she acts ruthlessly. (If by that term we include killing one's opponent). Maybe 1 in 100,000 times or more the "meek" will somehow convince the ruthless that they can both survive if they work together instead of competing.

Popular literature and film often depict the "meek" winning against the "ruthless" through cooperation and ingenuity, but usually there is one or more "noble hearts" with ruthless tendencies who lead the meek to victory. For instance "Seven Samurai," and "Road Warrior"

You have assumed that the meek will have a tendency to cooperate with other meek souls but that's not necessarily a given. Instead they could all go to ground and get hunted down by the ruthless. Still, if your assumption is right, then the advantage of that cooperation will be expressed in ruthless acts against the ruthless.

Of course in your hypothetical setting the ruthless could kill each other off and allow the meek to thrive through cooperation, but it would be far more likely that the ruthless would band together (cooperation doesn't always lead to good outcomes) and seek to take, by force, what the meek have been able to produce.

In a situation where there a large numbers of "ruthless" and "meek", it is unlikely that anyone would personify those traits completely. Any that might, would probably find themselves the first casualties.





0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2015 10:33 am
The very frail walk of civilization with a continued two steps forward one step back has in spite of poor evidence pointed so far to the herd people...predators are allowed as a minority group, an educator reminding us on the ruthlessness of Nature...Neo Darwinism as explained why cooperation works, it is energy efficient !
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 06:05 am
@Tuna,
Tuna wrote:

The goal is survival. Who is fittest? Those who embrace their ruthlessness and dominate or those who display their vulnerability and broadcast love? One draws people together by force. The other draws people together in trust.

Who wins in the end?


The OP is interesting in itself. It seems to set no framework, nor will it offer any usable definitions on what constitutes 'survival', even though in modern society 'survival' is a pretty complex business, which requires the input of a lot labor and effort from numerous people (even if only looking at the basics, food to eat, drinks to drink(heck, even just plain water to drink these days), clothes to wear and a place to stay and keep the weather at bay.

Given just that, I'd say in the short term 'the ruthless' would have better survival odds, since they are capable to get what they need by force, by subjugation of others (namely, 'the meek'). However, such situations rarely last long: eventually, the oppressors will grow weak, or their offspring will be less ruthless, or less capable to maintain the force necessary to stay 'ruthless' enough in the eyes of the oppressed and therefore discontent others.

At such times, the oppressor(and family) will usually be disposed off. And another will take their place, since by then a societal structure has been formed, which greatly facilitates 'the ruthless'. It's probably the ones most discontent with the previous ruthless oppressors that will wind up replacing them, and therefore maintain the status quo of 'the ruthless' oppressing 'the meek'.

Supposedly, 'the meek' could work together to survive, without use of force. However, the type of society that would come into existence would be vulnerable to any outside or native 'ruthless' people, willing to take more for themselves at the behest of those too meek to stand up to them.

So, in the final analysis, for me, it would inevitably end in a situation where the ruthless will form a society where they can use force effectively to have others help them survive.

-------

Whether or not I believe this to be true is something else entirely: in real life, people and situations are much more complex and multi-faceted...

Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 06:38 am
I am happy to dig in to any thread that provokes thought, Thanks for the exercise Tuna.

Without outside intervention

The ruthless will take all that the meek will share, and more. The meek become weak and will likely be the first to fall to death, after all, if they are into agape love, they will put even the ruthless ahead of themselves. None of them survive death though, so it's a lose lose situation, the meek merely lose quicker.

If the Christian God exists and has any interest.

The ruthless will take all that the meek will share and more, the meek are still more likely to be the first to fall in death, however in this scenario death is not intrinsically a loss as the meek will survive, whether through resurrection, reincarnation or heavenly invitation dependant upon which version of this god exists. The ruthless will be no more by scriptures claim, so ultimately it's a win for the meek. (unless the fire and brimstone god exists, in which case the ruthless also survive for eternity albeit in a burning hell)



 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 05:23:07