Gå til innhold

Autoritære ideologier er på fremmasj. Betyr dette kun en ting?


Anbefalte innlegg

Videoannonse
Annonse

Ja, nei og kanskje.

Vi har mye dyrisk djevelskap latent i våre mer primitive deler av hjernen, noen mer enn andre, men også en unik evne til å reflektere og utvikle oss både som individer og samfunn. For eks kan vi jo tenke langsiktig og forstå at vi kan bli syke eller gamle og skrøpelige, således er det i alles interesse at også de svake blir ivaretatt. Det skumle med totalitære ideer er at det også kan gi en kollektiv trygghet og mening, noe som da gjør utenforstående til en trussel. 

  • Innsiktsfullt 4
Lenke til kommentar
4 minutes ago, ForTheImperium said:

Ja enig. Er det jeg føler mange mennesker i verden nå flokker til. 

Jeg tror det er viktig å være bevisst hvordan det er mye lettere å rive ned enn å bygge opp, det kreves mye mer kjærlighet om man skal lykkes i å utfordre hat, alle destruktive krefter er langt mer effektive enn de oppbyggende.

Det er mye enklere å foreslå en enkel, men egoistisk eller falsk løsning, enn det er å gå til roten av et problem og fikse den.

Uten at det nødvendigvis sier noe om menneskets natur, men mer om dynamikken mellom positive og negative ting.

Man ser jo hvordan informasjon og kunnskap lider, i møte med verdens lateste misinformasjon.

  • Liker 2
  • Innsiktsfullt 1
Lenke til kommentar
1 hour ago, Kakkelfant said:

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Vi har hatt det ganske godt en stund, og er nå tilsynelatende på full fart inn i "hard times".

Noen har spurt en gresk historiker om dette sitatet, jeg synes de ga et interessant og utfyllende svar, kanskje noe å ta med seg videre hvis du uten videre føler for å lene deg på en slik aforisme.

[...]The first question is, of course, impossible to answer. What does it mean for times to be hard, for men to be strong, or their opposites?
Can such things be quantified? Is there a way to assess whether a specific group of men is strong or weak (and can we say this for all men across entire societies)?
Is it possible to say that an entire period of history qualifies as good times or hard times (and for whom)?
In reality these words don't mean anything; they only work if we look at historical societies through vague and shallow impressions.
They serve to paint stereotypes with the broadest possible brush, and to reinforce a moral interpretation of history that will not be distracted by facts.
Any serious look at a specific case will show that they are simply not workable categories.

But even if we pretend that we could agree on solid definitions, it's easy to see that the theory makes no sense. "Hard times create strong men" - well, unless the hardness of the times comes from famine, natural disasters, disease, or foreign invasion, in which case it is more likely to create weakened and desperate men (and women).
"Strong men create good times" - good times for whom? If we are to understand this phrase in its Greco-Roman sense, strong men conquer, subjecting others to their will.
Are these good times?
Are they good even for the conqueror, who faces the horrors of aggressive war and the constant threat of rebellion?
"Good times create weak men" - tell it to any of the human beings alive today who are taller and healthier and live longer than men in hard times past.
Besides, in many ancient societies the leisure class provided the warriors, which implies that times of prosperity should result in a larger class of trained fighters, not a smaller or weaker one.
"Weak men create hard times" - this one doesn't even sound logical.
Do the weak men generate hard times by design? Why would they do this? Or is the implication that they do so inadvertently - but if so, aren't hard times more simply the direct result of good times?
And given the list of "hard times" I gave earlier, how many of them could be prevented by a generation of "strong" men?

The only way this philosophy can draw people in is through oversimplification and through the appearance of making sense. To do so, it appeals only to particular perspectives and common narratives of history.

[...]The only way that the aphorism explains history is by reinforcing confirmation bias - by seeming to confirm what we already believe about the state of the world and the causes behind it.
Only those worried about a perceived crisis in masculinity are likely to care about the notion of "weak men" and what trouble they might cause.
Only those who wish to see themselves or specific others as "strong men" are likely to believe that the mere existence of such men will bring about a better world.
This has nothing to do with history and everything with stereotypes, prejudice and bias.
It started as a baseless morality tale, and that is what it still is.

  • Innsiktsfullt 2
Lenke til kommentar

Opprett en konto eller logg inn for å kommentere

Du må være et medlem for å kunne skrive en kommentar

Opprett konto

Det er enkelt å melde seg inn for å starte en ny konto!

Start en konto

Logg inn

Har du allerede en konto? Logg inn her.

Logg inn nå
×
×
  • Opprett ny...