Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Tgace]

Which is all counter to what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN by the author.

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog;

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

For Gods sake its just a simple analogy Grossman uses to describe/instill a survivor mindset. One he used in a speech to military personnel.

The only "darkness" here is what the reader brings in his own head.

 

[Makalakumu]

Which is all counter to what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN by the author.

4. Supermen. The Superman rejects faith and immortality, assuming that either "God is dead," or that the Creator is no longer active in human development. By rejecting faith, this Superman and his ideal society become responsible for their own morality. Existentialism concludes that no person had yet reached such a level, noting that even the greatest of men is "all-too-human."

Please note the boldface. The Superman concept fits the sheepdog like a glove. In fact, ever quote you took from the article points directly at one of the six points I posted above.

For Gods sake its just a simple analogy Grossman uses to describe/instill a survivor mindset. One he used in a speech to military personnel.

That doesn't make it any less AynRandian. Objectivism is an enticing philosophy for military types. It certainly bolsters their confidence by making them feel important.

The only "darkness" here is what the reader brings in his own head.

Sorry, to burst your bubble, but this analogy is existentialist...It has all the trappings.

In a nutshell, there is a lot of inherit darkness in existentialism. It is godless, souless and mostly hopeless, with an over-reliance on the self. It is a fearful (and ultimately craven) philisophy that casually brushes moral difficulties away in favor of pragmatism, because, hey what else is there? The main problem with existentialism is that it over-simplifies human interaction. It negates the structures of culture and the ties between people and the power that those things have in our lives.

I didn't suddenly "make" this thing existentialist. It just is.

 

[Tgace]

You keep on using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means. Since when has existentialism=BAD?

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

 

[Makalakumu]

You keep on using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means. Since when has existentialism=BAD?

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

I gave a good definition of the the philosophy above and I believe that I laid out a pretty logical breakdown based on existentialist thought.

Existentialism isn't all bad. The philosophy has its appeal in certain areas, yet there are some problems...especially where this analogy is concerned.

Here is a book review of "Existential America" see this link. Very interesting and applicable to what we are talking about.

BTW - are you trying to tell me that Nietzche isn't just a little depressing?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are forerunners of existentialism. If we want to thank, or blame, two men for radical individualism, we could start with them. There were others before them, but most texts on existentialism seem to firmly place them at the the base. Radical individualism is not existentialism, however.

Existentialism is Living

Mankind is the only known animal, according to earth-bound existentialists, that defines itself through the act of living. In other words, first a man or woman exists, then the individual spends a lifetime changing his or her essence. Without life there can be no meaning; the search for meaning in existentialism is the search for self… which is why there is existential psychotherapy. (Imagine a therapist telling people life has no meaning!) In other words, we define ourselves by living; suicide would indicate you have chosen to have no meaning.

Existentialism is about being a saint without God; being your own hero, without all the sanction and support of religion or society.
- Anita Brookner (b. 1938), British novelist, art historian. Interview in Writers at Work, Eighth Series, ed. George Plimpton (1988).

Existentialism is not dark. It is not depressing. Existentialism is about life. Existentialists believe in living — and in fighting for life. Camus, Sartre, and even Nietzsche were involved in various wars because they believed passionately in fighting for the survival of their nations and peoples. The politics of existentialists varies, but each seeks the most individual freedom for people within a society.

All too often people link a lack of faith or secular beliefs with existential ideals. Existentialism has little to do with faith or the lack thereof. To quote Walter Kaufmann, one of the leading existential scholars:

Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who appear invariably on every list of existentialists — Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre — are not in agreement on essentials. By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that one essential feature shared by all these men is their perfervid individualism.
- Existentialism; Kaufmann, p. 11

In order to understand the current meaning of existentialism, one must first understand that the American view of existentialism was derived from the writings of three political activists, not intellectual purists. Americans learned the term existential after World War II. The term was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre to describe his own philosophies. It was not until the late 1950s that the term was applied broadly to several divergent schools of thought.

Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are simple:

-Mankind has free will.
-Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
-Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
-Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
-If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Existentialism, broadly defined, is a set of philosophical systems concerned with free will, choice, and personal responsibility. Because we make choices based on our experiences, beliefs, and biases, those choices are unique to us and made without an objective form of truth. There are no “universal” guidelines for most decisions, existentialists believe. Instead, even trusting science is often a “leap of faith.”

The existentialists conclude that human choice is subjective, because individuals finally must make their own choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. Because individuals make their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose, they are completely responsible for their choices. The existentialists emphasize that freedom is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore, since individuals are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom — and therefore their responsibility — thrust upon them. They are “condemned to be free.”

For existentialism, responsibility is the dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are completely responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs, they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or denying their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves. The existentialists criticize this flight from freedom and responsibility into self-deception. They insist that individuals must accept full responsibility for their behavior, no matter how difficult. If an individual is to live meaningfully and authentically, he or she must become fully aware of the true character of the human situation and bravely accept it.
- World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia © 2001 by World Book, Inc.
Ivan Soll, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Beyond this short list of concepts, the label existentialist is applied broadly. Even these concepts are not universal within existentialist works, or at least the writings of people groups as the existentialists. There is no one or two sentence statement summarizing what more than a dozen famous and infamous people pondered. The only common factor seems to be despair. The accompanying grid illustrates the range of ideals expressed by the major existentialists. Not every existentialist follows a perfect row in the grid. In particular, their political theories are more varied than the three categories listed.

As I recall my under/post grad philosophy courses, this closely matches what I understand as existentialism, so no I really dont see how this condemns the topic at hand.

 

[Tgace]

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves.

Hmmm...sounds more anti-"sheep,wolf,sheepdog as class" and more "you have a choice to create what you are" to me. So maybe the concept is existentialist....

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html

As I recall my under/post grad philosophy courses, this closely matches what I understand as existentialism, so no I really dont see how this condemns the topic at hand.

It doesn't condemn the topic at hand, it helps understand it. As I have said before, existentialism is not all bad. Yet, concepts like "master morality" and "slave morality" and "supermen" etc...all have root in existentialism. It is a philosophy with limits on how it explains the world and, as I have pointed out, these limits are the same limits of this analogy.

I believe the author was influenced heavily by this philosophy, why else would his constructs match so closely other existential constructs. Particularly, I believe the author to be rather Objectivist which is a AynRandian offshoot of existentialism, owing its roots to the works of Nietzche in particular.

Existentialism is a bleak philosophy for most Christians...or any other religious person. There is no God. There is no outer meaning. There is nothing but the self. And this concept translates into an understanding of the Sheep, believing the Wolf doesn't exist, praying for their world to be safe, but the Sheepdogs know this is not true. They are the supermen.

See where I am going with this?

 

[Makalakumu]

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves.

Hmmm...sounds more anti-"sheep,wolf,sheepdog as class" and more "you have a choice to create what you are" to me. So maybe the concept is existentialist....

I'm a little confused at what you are trying to say here, but I'll give it a go...

Lets take this quote, "there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves,"and call it truth...

What about those who believe otherwise? What about those who believe that God will protect them? That Jesus Saves? Why worry about the Wolf? These people are the Sheep, because they just don't know the truth.

The Sheepdogs, on the other hand, know the truth. Nobody is going to protect you when the Wolf comes. Nothing will save you but me, because I am the real protector of society/morality.

Check this quote from the article...

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

Everything I've said is right there.

 

[Tgace]

I see where you are going its called an "extension".

 

[Makalakumu]

I see where you are going its called an "extension".

It's called Nietzche. Its called Rand. It's called existentialism. And it may even be an "extension" in the Venn way of thinking.

I don't think that I'm too far off and I think that understanding this analogy in a Socratic sense, pretty much requires a knowledge of the above.

Without it, I believe, you won't understand the critiques of the analogy...

 

[sgtmac_46]

I gave a good definition of the the philosophy above and I believe that I laid out a pretty logical breakdown based on existentialist thought.

Existentialism isn't all bad. The philosophy has its appeal in certain areas, yet there are some problems...especially where this analogy is concerned.

Here is a book review of "Existential America" see this link. Very interesting and applicable to what we are talking about.

BTW - are you trying to tell me that Nietzche isn't just a little depressing?

You have laid a fairly well argued statement bout Nietzsche's will to power concept. What you have NOT done, is in anyway refute it? It is godless and places too much emphasis on the self? That it reflects an ultimately futile existence. lol, So you're saying you disagree, because you don't like it? Well, now we get to the core of the question. Master Morality versus Slave Morality. I was wondering when someone was going to hit on the concept. I didn't want to bring it up myself, I wanted to wait until it was argued. Thesis, Anti-thesis and Synthesis. I'm very impressed, upnorthkyosa. You are very perceptive.

 

[sgtmac_46]

More than a general suspicion that your views are politically conservative, I have no idea.

But I don't seem to be seeing any substantiation of what I take for your position: that this analogy cannot be identified with any particular political or religious group. The bit of research I did suggested otherwise: could you support your argument, please?

It depends on which views you are referring to. My foreign policy and crime control views could be considered very conservative. My views on social programs, taxation, morality and other issues, might get me labeled a liberal. So, again, take your pick. What's more, religion is a non-starter topic with me, I don't derive my viewpoint from any religion. I seem to disprove your point. I believe you are barking up the proverbial wrong tree.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I read the article on the "ressurected thread" in the firearms forum and I've skimmed this thread. Thus far, I haven't seen this point brought up. This analogy screams of existentialism

Definition – The universe in inherently disordered. Thus we struggle to make our own meaning, if only for a little bit. Either way the human desired for logic and morality are ultimately futile. Everything changes.

There is nothing untrue in this statement. As far as we know, the universe is inherently disorderd. Order itself is an entirely human creation. Man is, indeed, the measure of all things.

Some relavent points about Existentialism that relate to this analogy...

1. The dialectic. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. This is a process in which groups of people form their own truths regarding the universe. The Thesis exists as one belief and the Antithesis exists as it’s opposite. When placed on a spectrum they come together and synthesize a middle ground. This process has often been used to control the beliefs of the masses. If the Thesis and Antithesis in a population is controlled, the Synthesis direction is also controlled.

This is correct in a sense, but there is a great underlying problem. The idea controlling the beliefs of the masses on any large scale is silly. The reality is that Thesis and Antithesis blend as concepts because of their interaction, not as part of some action plan. These ideas are much to large and chaotic to be controlled.

2. Anti-religion. This is the complete disregard for all things that cannot be scientifically proven or demonstrated. This principle does not claim that nothing exists that cannot be proven, nor that those things should be disregarded. What it does suggest is that many people use religion, especially Judeo-Christian teachings, as a crutch for avoiding decisive actions. Existentialism encompasses the idea that men must accept that they are part of a material world, regardless of what else might exist. As part of this world, men must live as if there is nothing else beyond life. A failure to live, to take risks, is a failure to realize human potential. Religion is nothing but a diversion from humanity.

Again, this seems to be the path that recent history has taken. We have to look no further than the very Enlightenment that founded these ideals to see this manifest.

3.

Will To Power. Existentialists claim that this is the primary human instinct, representing the pinnacle of human achievement through his animistic roots. Existentialists reject sympathy as the basis for human morality by pointing to the fact that humans are naturally competitive. The individual who is most successful is usually the individual that will do anything to become successful, resulting in a reliance on brutality and cunning. This stronger instinct will always dominate over sympathy, eventually erasing it from a culture.

The Will to Power have served mankind well, without them we would still be living in caves afraid of the dark.

4. Supermen. The Superman rejects faith and immortality, assuming that either "God is dead," or that the Creator is no longer active in human development. By rejecting faith, this Superman and his ideal society become responsible for their own morality. Existentialism concludes that no person had yet reached such a level, noting that even the greatest of men is "all-too-human."

Supermen are necessary for society, they drive change and progress. They are all too human as well, however.

5. Master Morality. The ruling class is successful because they were born successful. They became leaders through their naturally superior abilities and stronger aggressive instincts. This translates into an acceptance of aggression and the use of force. The masters express power openly, they view the pursuit of power and the defense of self as honorable. For this reason, it is speculated that these leaders would not hold a grudge against enemies. In fact, they would not view competitors for power as enemies, but rather as opponents in a great game of human ability. These rulers welcome competition, believing that it builds character and teaches valuable lessons. After a battle, they study their failures and openly admit the strengths of others. Master morality does not see a right and wrong, only a superior and inferior combatant.

Do we need to even argue this. All we must do is examine history and the world around us to see THIS effect too.

6.

Slave Morality. In stark contrast to the ruling class, the subservient populations embrace a moral code based upon a mythical equality of individuals. Knowing this, the aristocrats claim to acknowledge this equality in various empty manners -- such as equality under the law, which applies seldom in reality. The subservient, slave class eventually realizes that life cannot be equal, so a religion is developed promising that they are actually superior to those in power on earth. Existentialism hypothesizes that the slave class embraced democracy and the principle of equality in order to bring the naturally superior class down to their own level. Sin and evil are artificial constructs, created by the slaves and adopted by the leaders of this class, who often become leaders in the aristocratic class -- proving they do not believe in this religious myth. The slaves demean sex, human desire, and teach humility instead of respect for power and authority. Existentialism postulates that this was a repression of resentments. A minority of religious leaders are either true believers or individuals seeking power, but unable to admit this due to their own repressed natures.

Don't forget, Slave Morality is the morality that usually looks with such resentment on such analogies. Isn't it ironic to see the very ideals we are discussing, at play in our own philosophies? It's very difficult to argue that this is not a description of real phenomenon, using the very ideology to make that argument.

Thus we see things like the sheep, sheepdog, and wolf analogy. The Sheep have assumed a slave morality, while the Wolves have taken the will to power to its logical limits. A Sheepdog strives to be a superman by rejecting the religion of his fellow sheep and taking responsability for his own (and societies) morality. The whole concept is dialectic with the Sheep equating the thesis and the Wolves equating the antithesis. The Sheepdogs are the synthesis because the struggle between the thesis and antithesis demands their existance. Throughout the whole peice is the concept of master morality. The Sheepdogs demand honor and respect because they feel that they are what makes our society possible.

Yes, except I noticed you didn't explain WHY the struggle between thesis and antithesis demands their existence. The answer is actually very complex. Depending on which point you view existence through, master or slave morality, the sheepdog can be viewed as a protector, a stumbling block to power, or even a defender of the status quo. In reality, the sheepdog is part of what holds the social order together, ALL social orders, be they formal or informal.

While I agree with some existentialist points, I would have to point out, that it isn't the only way of looking at things. In fact, there have been people who have been much smarter then me who have written critiques on this philisophic POV.

Those critiques usually take the form of reasons WHY existentialism "seems" bad. In other words, it's not pallatable to everyone.

In a nutshell, there is a lot of inherit darkness in existentialism. It is godless, souless and mostly hopeless, with an over-reliance on the self. It is a fearful (and ultimately craven) philisophy that casually brushes moral difficulties away in favor of pragmatism, because, hey what else is there? The main problem with existentialism is that it over-simplifies human interaction. It negates the structures of culture and the ties between people and the power that those things have in our lives.

Of course it's dark, it's a reality devoid of independent morality and purpose. That doesn't mean it isn't OUR reality. .

The Sheepdog synthesis is a horrible simplication of our wants and desires and of the skills that each of us was born with. The Wolf peice of this is dehumanizing because it reduces the reasons that one would become a wolf down to the will to power. And finally, the Sheep is downright derogatory. The label disempowers and devalues the diversity of those labeled and it undermines the power inherit in all people.

If their are two paths in the woods, this analogy is the easy one, chosen by those who do not wish to see the complexity and diversity in our world. Creating meaning from the total package is just too difficult.

upnorthkyosa

Again, isn't that what Nietzsche said, that not everyone could handle such a reality? I mean, have you asked yourself, upnorthyosa, if it is remotely possible that you ARE embracing the Slave Morality, and for the very reasons listed above. In fact, aren't your arguments paralelling EVERYTHING that Nietzsche said about Slave Morality? Just food for thought

Again, however, I believe reality is more complex than all this, however, Nietzsche has more than just a piece of the truth.

As I explained to robertson earlier in the post, I feel as though the conflict is actually larger than Master Morality versus Slave Morality. In fact, I see it as Robert Pirsig first outlined in Lila as levels of conflict.

Inorganic versus Biology
Biology versus Social
Social versus Intellectual
Dynamic versus Static

Now lets look at a list of Master/Slave morality traits.

Slave: .................................Master:
Resentful .............................Expresses anger directly
Reactionary (negative)............Creative (positive)
Other-directed ......................Self-directed
Other-worldly (religion)............This-worldly (secular)
Self-deceptive ......................Self-aware
Humble (meek)............. .........Proud (not vain)
Altruistic........................... ...Egoistic
Prudent....................... ........Experimental
Democratic (Self-indulgent).. ...Aristocratic (Value hiearchy)
Confessional .........................Discrete (masked)
Morality of principles.............. Morality of persons
Weak-Willed...................... ...Strong-Willed
Good (weak) vs. Evil (strong)...Good (Strong) vs Bad (weak)
(taken from http://academics.triton.edu/uc/nietzsche.html)

If we examine these conflicts closely, we can see pieces of our Master Morality versus Slave Morality, conflict. In the Biology versus Social order conflict, we see Biology representing aspects of Master Morality, i.e. we see creativity, egoistic, self-directed people, what we might call "wolves". These are people who see the advancement of their own desires and ambitions above society. They might be the thief on the corner, or a dictator. They represent individual will to power. In conflict with social order, in which we see manifest many of the attributes of slave morality, valuation of humility, altruism, prudency, morality of principles, a belief in the struggle of good versus evil, we see Nietzsche's Master Morality versus Slave Morality, inverted. In this conflict, Social quality has the moral right and obligation to make Biological quality subordinate and subserviant to it, and use whatever means are necessary.

If we examine the next level of conflict, Social Versus Intellectual Quality, we see, again, Social Quality exemplifying Slave Morality, for the reasons we outlined. We see roles flip-flopping again, however, as we now see Intellectual Quality displaying traits of Master Morality. Creativity, grounded in this world, experimental.

What does this all tell us? Well, it tells us that when (Social quality) Slave Morality is in conflict with (Biological quality) Master Morality, Social quality is the more moral position. However, when (Social quality) Slave Morality is in conflict with (Intellectual quality) is the more moral position.

We can even look outside the relm of pure philosophy, to, say, personality theory. Lets look at Keirsey/Bates, Meyers/Briggs, Jung, where we can see the their observations about different personality types. Those Keirsey calls Artisans, seem to embrace many aspects of what we see as the (Biological quality) Master Morality, expresses anger directly, creative, self-directed, proud, egoistic, etc. Guardians seem to, by and large by description, embrace (Social quality) Slave Morality, reactionary, other-directed, self-deceptive, prudent, etc. Rationals, for their part, seem to have cornered the market on what is described as (Intellectual quality) Master Morality, experimental, discrete, morality of persons, strong-willed, etc.

That leaves one class of people I don't know exactly where they would fit. They are Keirsey's Idealists. They do seem to embrace an aspect of Slave Morality, being as they are Altruistic and Other-wordly, yet they seem to be on an entire different level than Keirsey's Guardians. Perhaps they represent that dynamic quality that Pirsig referred to when talking about what replaces Intellectual Quality as the next level of quality.

Ok, I know, i'm rambling significantly from topic, but these are connections I see, and since upnorthkyosa grasped this much, I thought i'd run this by you folks.

Since I brought it up, anyone care to share what Keirsey personality type matches any of you?

 

[Makalakumu]

Very nice post.

Wouldn't you agree that knowing about existentialism helps understand this analogy? I don't think we are off topic at all, I think we have just begun to dig deep.

A few things...

I am a sheep, a sheepdog, and a wolf. At points in my life, I have been all of this and I think that this represents a greater span of humanity then existentialism presents. We all wear different hats and I don't think we can be born into these roles.

While there are many truths in existentialism, there are a few problems and the biggest in the tendancy to over-simplify. The structures of culture are often brushed off as "slave morality" and are not seen to encompass much power at all. The driving focus on the "self" is too myopic in my opinion.

Thus, we reach the limitations of this analogy.

A few quotes from your post...

This is correct in a sense, but there is a great underlying problem. The idea controlling the beliefs of the masses on any large scale is silly. The reality is that Thesis and Antithesis blend as concepts because of their interaction, not as part of some action plan. These ideas are much to large and chaotic to be controlled.

I think you sense the gist of what I was getting at, but I think that you are wrong to say that the synthesis cannot be controlled. Perhaps if we weaken the word and say manipulated. Think of this as Problem/Action/Solution. A problem is presented, people demand action, and a solution is given. The problem is the antithesis. The action is the thesis. The solution is the synthesis...and this solution can be totally contrived. (I'm going to bring up the Nazi's but this isn't in an effort to label anyone) The Riechstaag Fire is a perfect example of a problem/action/solution. The Nazi's set fire to this place and blamed it on others. The people bought the lie and demanded a solution. And the Nazi's gave them one...Kristolnacht.

Supermen are necessary for society, they drive change and progress. They are all too human as well, however.

I think the concept of "Supermen" is an oversimplification. It ignores the chain of events that led to it. People with power often feel that they are different then those without. This is true to an extent. Yet, it ignores the hurdles of environment. For some, being a "superman" is "easier" then it is for others.

Don't forget, Slave Morality is the morality that usually looks with such resentment on such analogies. Isn't it ironic to see the very ideals we are discussing, at play in our own philosophies? It's very difficult to argue that this is not a description of real phenomenon, using the very ideology to make that argument.

How true. Their is a fair bit of truth in this way of thinking, yet it has limitations, as I have pointed out above. I think Humanism is a more accurate description of human life...btw, Humanism flowed from Existentialist thought.

Yes, except I noticed you didn't explain WHY the struggle between thesis and antithesis demands their existence. The answer is actually very complex. Depending on which point you view existence through, master or slave morality, the sheepdog can be viewed as a protector, a stumbling block to power, or even a defender of the status quo. In reality, the sheepdog is part of what holds the social order together, ALL social orders, be they formal or informal.

It is part, but not the only part or even the greater part. The scientist who has no capacity for violence, but invents the antibiotics for our diseases does just as much for our society as the police officer. However, I feel that this article places an emphasis on the Sheepdog's/Police Officer's/Soldiers input on society. The disease, in essence, is also the Wolf. And I think that I'm giving a perfect example of the oversimplication that I talking about. We all wear many hats.

Those critiques usually take the form of reasons WHY existentialism "seems" bad. In other words, it's not pallatable to everyone.

No, its just that other ways of thinking explain the world better. I'll make that my next post.

Again, isn't that what Nietzsche said, that not everyone could handle such a reality? I mean, have you asked yourself, upnorthyosa, if it is remotely possible that you ARE embracing the Slave Morality, and for the very reasons listed above. In fact, aren't your arguments paralelling EVERYTHING that Nietzsche said about Slave Morality? Just food for thought.

Sometimes I'm the Slave, and sometimes I'm the Master. It depends heavily on the environment. Our world can seem like a giant interplay of hypocrisies, but I think there is a path in which people can "stick to their guns" as best as they are able.

Ok, I know, i'm rambling significantly from topic, but these are connections I see, and since upnorthkyosa grasped this much, I thought i'd run this by you folks.

Since I brought it up, anyone care to share what Keirsey personality type matches any of you?

Do you have a link for this so I can refresh my memory? I'm going to be changing diapers any minute so I won't be able to respond to your question with any sort of haste without it.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. I hope Robert chimes back in. He really knows way more then I on this subject and I think could contribute greatly.

upnorthkyosa

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The "master/slave," bit actually comes from Hegel. Marx adapted it in discussions of bourgeoisie/proletariat.

2. Rand is in no sense an existentialist. She defines her philosophy as, "objectivism." But see her and Nathaniel Branden's unreadable, "philosophy."

3. Existentialism is sometimes warped into selfishness. However, the actual books always imply one's relationship--and obligation--to others. See Malraux, "Man's Fate," and DeBeauvoir's, "The Blood of Others," especially. But in general, the individual/social relation tends to be described as a problem for which there are no answers: see Sartre's plays, "No Exit," and "Dirty Hands," as well as his, "The Roads to Freedom," series of novels. And existentialism turned out to be a solipsistic dead end--which is why Sartre and DeBeauvoir both became screaming Maoists...a real pity. For a takeout, see (can't remember author), "One Doesn't Move Without the Other."

4. Fundamentally, the problem with all these analogies--and Pirsig's chart of binary oppositions--is that they are far too simplistic to get at anything like the actual grain of human experience and history.

 

[TonyM.]

If anyone is intesested, Neitzche was enlisted to write his works and financed by The house of Rothschild. Probably not original to him at all but a contination of other illuminatti fairy tales.

 

[Makalakumu]

2. Rand is in no sense an existentialist. She defines her philosophy as, "objectivism." But see her and Nathaniel Branden's unreadable, "philosophy."

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can see lots of existential influence in Rand's writing. I suspect she drew heavily from Neitzche. Is this incorrect? Could you explain this further?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm not that great on Nietszche--but most of this stuff is a distortion of arguments he directed against bourgeois society and human hypocrisy.

Rand was just a wannabe philosopher, who didn't write terribly well and who simply couldn't tell the difference between democratic society and communism--and who gets used at every turn, whether or not they know it, by jerks who want to justify their fantasies of superiority and their belief that they should be empowered to grab as much as they possibly can from whoever they want.

And please, whoever you are, spare me the veiled anti-semitism (House of Rothschild, my foot) and Dan Brown secret society goofiness.

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm...I always thought the point of analogy WAS to simplify reality. I doubt Grossman was trying to explain reality.

And has Grossman stated repeatedly, the Sheep/Sheepdog thing is "a choice" and that prople can be one or all of them in their lifetime. In one quote he states its a "sliding scale" and that the Sheepdog that goes out unarmed is a Sheep (thats highly debateable but the point is hes not making a "superman" argument). So how is that different from anything stated so far?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Arguably, yes, analogies, metaphors, and all the rest of language simplifies reality so we can communicate.

The problem is, it's a silly and inadequate analogy--and what's worse, one that a) has a bad history, b) encourages other sillinesses, and c) conceals reality.