I hate analyzing human history and trying to draw grandiose conclusions from it, but I'll say that I always felt like this was a chicken and egg problem. In the modern world, it isn't as necessary to feel part of a group, but prior to the information era, groups dominated individual life, so if you didn't belong to a group, you were highly disadvantaged. Today, you can get on on your own if you want to, to some extent (see my response to the next quote; it's more necessary to identify with groups for some people than others). Just my opinion though.
In modern world we still need the help of other people. Solipsism is, sadly for some, still an illusion in the real world. We can't do "anything" alone right now.
I personally don't have sources of drinkable water near me that I can reach by walking. And keep in mind that I won't use a car because nobody would take oil anymore, nobody would turn it into fuel, nobody would take it to the station. I would spend about one day and half reaching mountains by walking, but then? I can drink, still assuming that water didn't get contaminated, and what do I eat? squirrels? And what will I do in winter? I'd probably end up freezing.
We've never been that depending from others in the whole history. Do you live in a cold place? What do you think you would do without centralized warming?
How would you protect yourself against a bear or worse, without a weapon?
I can't really agree with the way you've described history here. XD A lot of these "-stan" countries don't identify as much with a national identity as much as with descrete tribal/ethnic identites. The necessity to have a nation is a product of the Washington Consensus; they wouldn't organize this way necessarily if it wasn't the only way to compete in a global world.
Come on, you know well that the way they decide how a nation gets formed is far from being fair. Every country has its own interests, big countries favour the formation of a country as well as that fits their own interests. If it wasn't like this, you wouldn't have dozens of states who are recognized by some countries and not recognized by some others. Kosovo is an example, Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia, Taiwan, are others.
Well, with those -stan I meant "land of" not "nation of". While it's true that not every -stan is a nation, you will agree with me that its name is not random. Thus, you'll have Belucistan, Bashkotorstan, Dagestan because it fits the name of the population who inhabits those lands, not because it was edgy to put a -stan at the end of their name.
Again, the circumstances we live in define how necessary it is to some kind of group/society. It's about survival. If these countries didn't exist, they'd be erased or othered (Pakistan was created because Indian persecution of muslim populations was in fact a thing, even if it wasn't a perfect solution and border conflicts continue today). In sum: Yeah, it was very necessary. Life and death-type necessary.
The fact if it wasn't a perfect solution at all. Muslim persecutions are very big if you document in a Muslim source, very low if you document in a Hindu source, and even though we can't define who is right and who is wrong, our experience can suggest us that "truth is in the middle". This doesn't mean Islamic fundamentalists did never create problems in India. We've had numerous examples of destructions of temples or religious monuments.
Still stays the fact that today we have two big countries that hate each other.
I don't wanna speak for Shelke and put words into his mouth, because he's more than capable of expressing himself without my input, but I will say that I understand his viewpoint based on the course of human history.
Never said you were speaking for him. But since you make his name, I would like you to answer my question he wasn't able to answer: what would you think if someone (stranger) risks or even gives his life in order to save yours. Or rather, how do you think you would react?
In that right moment, would you be still convinced that human life is pointless? Would you laugh at him, as Shelke seemed to suggest, for being so stupid to care for someone else instead of just doing his own business?
I fundamentally disagree here, and I don't know if we can come to an agreement.
In the eyes of someone who commits suicide, and I'm generalizing here, there is no point to continue living. In the scenario described by OP (Sorry, KonanX, I made your thread the darkest thread on the base XD), if one chooses to sacrifice oneself for others, it is because there is no point in continuing one's own life at the expense of the lives of others. It's just a different sense of meaninglessness, except that generally we consider dying so that others might live to be more noble. And I mean, I know we emphasize the impact that suicide will have on the living, because, well, we're alive - but that's also in itself a form of egoism. It's all the same to me, really.
There is a fundamental difference between a suicidal and a hero: when one commits suicide, he thinks there is no point
for him to continue living. A suicides hates just his own life, not life in general, or he would find some way to kill other people while dying.
Instead, who sacrifices his own life for saving others, makes the sacrifice itself the point of his life. Plus, he gives an insane motivation for those who get their life saved by him.
For what concerns the humanity becoming more noble I disagree, one doesn't sacrifice himself for that.
Che Guevara (no I'm not a Communist) said something life "I disagree with your opinion, but I would give my life for you can freely express it". Humanity will not become more noble for that, this is not a mother who promises her child a candy if he does all his homework.
I will add a thing I previously said while confronting Shelke, join my reasoning: if you love a person, you find in that person some characteristics that make him/her unique. Those characteristics will lead you to consider that person worth dying for. Now, the fact is that everybody is loved or has been loved through his life, granting them a seat in the "worth dying for club". To me, it really doesn't matter if the one who finds those characteristics is me or someone else, everybody is worth dying for.
Never claimed to be a nihilist. But my understanding of nihilism isn't that it's this negative force that you're portraying it as. All it means is that nothing is given, and everything is constructed ("Nothing is true, everything is permitted" XD). When I say "life is not intrinsically worth living," I mean that "I am alive" is not a statement that has any value or meaning. Life is given meaning solely by the features surrounding life, whether it's your relationships or your goals or whatever else you give meaning. If you lose all those things, and all you are is alive, what's the value in that?
Well, you can't be "a bit Nihilist". the fact is that Nihilism is in a position that gives you no choice, you completely agree, or you completely disagree.
I mean, how could I say that there's nothing worth fighting for while there's something worth fighting for? Unless you say world is pointless from 1:30 to 4:00 PM but it's awesome for the rest of the time I really can't see how any other position or ideology can stay together with Nihilism.
Again, not a nihilist. But nihilism doesn't mean that life is pointless. It just means you are born into this world with no given truths or obligations beyond those which you choose for yourself. Which is freeing, in a sense, and can actually enhance the value of life as you select those things you believe matter. But it's important to acknowledge that all those things can be taken away from you - nothing can be taken for granted.
It doesn't mean, like Gnosticism, that you're born in a world with no
given truths like you can be able to find some truths if you search well.
Nihilism says that nothing in life matters. How can't be pointless a life in which nothing matters?
And how do you select the things that matter? This is not Nihilism, this is called Relativism (the one described as the greatest plague of the XX century huh). But never mind, let me ask you a question. Let's suppose you're a relativist, who chose the things that matter for him and now lives for that. What if another relativist dissipates those things because in his life don't matter? Are you supposed to make war to him for being exactly like you? And if you do, making war with that one is definitely a thing that you didn't program for being mattering, so what do you do? Do you modify your values? But how can that be a solid philosophy of life if it's so depending to the circumstances?
If I valued life such that it was fundamental ideal above all else, how would I ever rationalize an altruistic act like sacrificing myself for even one person? I would have to say that one life is valued more than the other, or I have to rely on other ideals. So the value of life itself is ultimately irrelevant, or at least highly subjective.
No, if you rationalize life in general as a fundamental idea, and not your own life. What if you were a rocks collector, and you had to destroy a boulder in order to find a treasure of super precious stones? Would you let all that treasure uncovered because your conscience of rock-lover can't bear you destroying a boulder, or would you take the stones?
I'm not encouraging suicide or saying we should all just kill ourselves. I don't think nihilists are hypocrites either. Life is an opportunity to create meaning; that meaning isn't given to you. But we need to understand that the world oftentimes takes meaning away from people, and puts them in a position where they might consider things like suicide. People aren't obligated to uphold the same meanings upon things like family and friendship like everyone else does.
Sadly, this is the same thing as above. I calculate the meaning of life as something that can be objective (right for everyone, useful for everyone) and not dangerous for others.
You can't give a meaning to your life basing it on something relative. If one says "the meaning of my life is making money", well, he fools himself.
You say your life is meaningful and useful to you because you get time to achieve your goals and bring joy to others, but not everyone necessarily sees or even has that opportunity, for example. The capacity to enjoy life is something that is learned - we're taught what we should hold important and to what we should aspire - and those who are unable to, for various reasons, and who therefore reject life, are not egotistical. Understanding this is key to sympathizing with those people and helping them to heal.
Maybe the
ways we are expected to enjoy life are taught. But life enjoyment itself is not taught. Animals are happy and nobody does explain them how they're supposed to enjoy life. Humans are less different than you think. Everybody is naturally prone to be happy with life, but this doesn't mean you can be happy with those three-four stereotypical things a happy person is supposed to have (fame, money, sexy women-men around, big cars etc.). The happiest person I've ever met was an ex addicted who lives in Rome's suburbs..
Anyway, you will agree with me that there is a big difference between being happy in another way, and have suicidal tendencies. Plus suicide is not present in nature as we do intend it. Only humans commit suicide for personal reasons.
Anyway, if I sacrifice my life for someone, and that guy commits suicide it would be pretty disappointing XD
