-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 16942)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy A board for pretentious debates on epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and logic.

Apply them to anything: Science, sex, your mom's cooking. No topic is too sacred or profane.
Consider this your haven where being a self-righteous, over-analytical asshole is encouraged.

What isn't allowed:

1. /b/, /x/, or /rnb/. Go spew your unhinged rants elsewhere.
2. Brainless drivel. If you can’t string two coherent thoughts together, take it to Twitter X.
3. Claims without arguments. "Because I say so" or "because you're gay" doesn’t count as reasoning. Repeatedly trolling and bait replies without substance will be banned.

Global rules apply. No, you can’t argue your way out of a ban for being an idiot. Add to the conversation, don't detract from it.

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 983 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.


Anonymous 25/11/03(Mon)16:26 No. 16942
16942

File 176218359291.png - (128.66KB , 340x185 , brb.png )

In regards to the below excerpt-- should the ruler be an individual or an insular clique, then yes, they'll elevate themselves above the /masses/ and /liberate/ themselves so as to indulge at will and without restraint, however, should rule be vested in the populace, then the rulers (the people) will elevate themselves above humanity (namely it's carnal proclivities), however, should that rule not apply equally, then tyranny and trickle-down corruption.

"Sima Tan described the fa school (Fajia) as emphasizing administrative protocols that ignore kinship and social status, treating everyone equally and thereby elevating the ruler above humanity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

further reading,、yamabushichan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Schools_of_Thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7VK75sMsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUw3iSRCYwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NIvo7z3Z90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWaljXUiCaE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYJckFq-K_M


>>
Anonymous 25/11/03(Mon)16:33 No. 16943

There has never been a system of governance without an elite core at the helm.

Also the median person is dumb af.


>>
Anonymous 25/11/03(Mon)19:25 No. 16946
16946

File 176219433490.png - (56.41KB , 180x180 , brb.png )

>>16943
Perhaps optimists would simply ascribe their condition to complacency, and the point is moreso that the governing elite (a (highly) subjective term) must be held to account/standards (regardless of their role).

~

To be sure, indulgence is an inevitability, in hereditary systems you can have a philosopher king one day and a tween-tyrant the next, and in less pompous might-makes-right (or more aptly, barbarism-makes-dumb) regimes their very nature rewards and necessitates depravity/regression/intolerance which is ultimately deleterious to society, certainly modern complex (socially and technically) ones. Indeed, is there a modern civilization that employs such governance, that is not materially/culturally impoverished (even if they have a superficial facade to the contrary)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXUgtNC4Kc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eDkFlVSwnk





Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason