#Philosophy of hierarchy

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of the Philosophy of Hierarchy

The philosophy of hierarchy examines the nature, justification, and implications of hierarchical structures within societies, organizations, and systems. It explores questions related to power dynamics, authority, and social order. Additionally, it delves into ethical considerations regarding the legitimacy and fairness of hierarchies and investigates alternative models of social organization.

Some theories in the philosophy of hierarchy include:

Social contract theory: This theory explores the idea that hierarchical structures are formed through implicit or explicit agreements among individuals for mutual benefit and social order.

Power and domination theory: This perspective emphasizes the role of power dynamics in the establishment and maintenance of hierarchical structures. It examines how individuals or groups use power to exert control over others within a hierarchy.

Functionalism: Functionalism argues that hierarchical structures serve essential functions in society by organizing individuals and facilitating cooperation and productivity. It views hierarchies as necessary for social stability and efficiency.

Conflict theory: Conflict theory posits that hierarchical structures are based on inherent conflicts of interest between different social groups. It highlights how hierarchies can perpetuate inequality and social injustice.

Anarchism: Anarchist theories challenge the legitimacy of hierarchical structures and advocate for decentralized, non-hierarchical forms of social organization. They prioritize individual autonomy and voluntary cooperation over institutionalized authority.

Feminist theory: Feminist perspectives on hierarchy examine how gender dynamics intersect with hierarchical structures to perpetuate gender inequality and oppression. They critique traditional hierarchical models and advocate for more equitable and inclusive forms of organization.

These are just a few examples of theories within the philosophy of hierarchy, each offering distinct insights into the nature and implications of hierarchical systems in society.

[philosophybits]

At war. People who argue about the amount of danger at each front. “Mine was the most dangerous.” When everything has been made vile and sordid, they still try to establish an order of merit. That is how they survive.

Albert Camus, Notebooks, 1935-1942

[idontwantrobyntodie]

uuh passed my thesis defense??

[stillnightcreatives]

In middle school I had no friends because I was depressed from gender dysphoria and didn't take care of myself... and yet I was incredibly kind and meant no harm. Our school system teaches stereotypes and promotes a toxic social hierarchy. There is no top or bottom but a complex mixture of colors. We are not creating structure in our society, we are creating a nation full of socially anxious followers. - Nickel Stillnight

[renaissancebadboy]

To tear, tear terribly, terribly Tear, tear terribly The delicate crepe of night - November, Sparkbird

Honeybee - he/him - Sabbat Malkavian

The culmination of us building a VtM Character together!

Honeybee perceives Chimerical reality at all times, screened over the mundane haphazardly. To a certain extent, he could shift focus to one or the other, but typically treats the Chimerical as "real" or primary.

He's no fool; he knows he isn't a Changeling, not like the Real McCoy, anyhow. But even some of them give flesh to nightmare - he is simply another nightmare made real.

To hear him tell it, he burst from a sleeping skull like Athena from Zeus in a shower of gore and bone. Potent fear and horror made solid to nip at human heels. There was no "before."

[femmeboyfatale13]

It doesn't matter how many "illegals" you throw out. Because there will still be drugs, rapes, murders, thefts, etc. Wanna know why? It's pretty fucking simple. We're human beings. We fuck shit up more than we'd like to admit. It's quite hilarious that we blame our own problems on another race or another country. When the problem lies within ourselves as a nation, as a people, as individuals. You can't call someone illegal, when your own ancestors invaded a country, and took someone else's home, and made it their own. Enslaved, raped, murdered, colonized and whitewashed it down. And then two-hundred years later you fear the same thing is going to happen to you. That's fucking crazy. Because when it all comes down to it, we fear retribution. We fear consequence and are blind to other's suffering due to the fact that we fear we will suffer the same fate. Now I know America is full of bullshit. But this particular bullshit and how everyone just simply agrees with it, as if it's a relevant problem really irks me.

Because once again America has shown its own true racist bullshit colors. As if there aren't any white people stealing, bringing in drugs, raping or murdering people or wrongfully using welfare.

We as a nation, as a whole species honestly should take a look at ourselves and see our own hypocrisy. Many superior empires and nations have fallen or have been taken over. And this whole cycle of insanity continues, and continues, and continues. Because we do not view each other as equal. We may say that all men are created equal. But have we shown that we believe that? I mean look at us, we will tear down anyone we see as inferior or deserving of mistreatment. We may have AI, iPhones, Laptop computers and 8k ultra hd televisions. But we are still the same barbarian species as we were thousands of years ago. We are still the same fearmongering bunch. We still reject the new, we isolate the different and we ridicule the weird and those who aren't like us. While all the meanwhile behind closed doors, we're all pretty fucking weird ourselves. It's comical. It really is. Because y'know I don't hear many people express these kinds of thoughts or beliefs. Because it's fundamental to our own beliefs we have. It's controversial. We don't wanna hear it. We don't wanna know it. But it's the cold, hard truth, and we can't handle the truth. Because deep down, we don't like the truth. The truth hurts when you actually think about it. And a majority of people would rather believe a certain way, to make themselves feel better about the things they've done or let happen. Then to admit that we are wrong about a lot of things.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Parentheses

Parentheses, while commonly viewed as simple punctuation marks used to insert additional information or clarify text, hold a deeper philosophical significance. Their role in language, logic, mathematics, and communication invites us to explore how they shape our understanding and interaction with the world. This exploration delves into the multifaceted philosophy of parentheses, examining their function, symbolism, and impact across various fields.

Understanding Parentheses

Linguistic Function:

In language, parentheses are used to provide supplementary information, clarify meaning, or offer asides without disrupting the main flow of the text. They create a space for additional context, allowing writers to include more nuanced details or explanations.

Mathematical Significance:

In mathematics, parentheses play a crucial role in defining the order of operations. They indicate which operations should be performed first, ensuring that complex equations are solved correctly. This use underscores the importance of structure and hierarchy in mathematical reasoning.

Logical Clarity:

In logic and formal languages, parentheses are used to group expressions and clarify the relationships between different components. They help avoid ambiguity and ensure precise interpretation of logical statements.

Programming Syntax:

In computer programming, parentheses are essential for functions, method calls, and controlling the flow of code. They define the scope of operations and organize code into manageable sections, facilitating readability and debugging.

Philosophical Perspectives on Parentheses

Symbolism and Meaning:

Parentheses symbolize inclusion and exclusion. They create a boundary within the text, setting apart specific elements while still maintaining their connection to the main narrative. This duality of separation and integration reflects broader philosophical themes of identity and difference.

Temporal and Spatial Dimensions:

The use of parentheses can be seen as a temporal and spatial device. Temporally, they allow for digressions and interruptions that enrich the narrative without altering its primary trajectory. Spatially, they create visual distinctions that guide the reader’s attention and understanding.

Context and Interpretation:

Parentheses influence how information is interpreted by providing context. They enable readers to grasp the intended meaning more fully, highlighting the significance of context in shaping comprehension and interpretation. This aligns with hermeneutical philosophies that emphasize the importance of context in understanding texts.

Metaphysical Implications:

From a metaphysical standpoint, parentheses can be viewed as a metaphor for the boundaries and structures that define our perception of reality. They encapsulate the idea that reality is not a monolithic entity but a composition of interconnected elements, each contributing to the whole while retaining individual distinctiveness.

Key Themes and Debates

Inclusion vs. Exclusion:

The philosophical tension between inclusion and exclusion is embodied in the use of parentheses. They invite us to consider what is included within the boundaries of our understanding and what is left outside. This raises questions about the nature of boundaries and the criteria for inclusion.

Hierarchy and Order:

Parentheses impose a hierarchical order on information, whether in language, mathematics, or logic. This hierarchy reflects broader philosophical inquiries into the nature of order, structure, and the principles that govern our interpretation of complex systems.

Clarification vs. Ambiguity:

While parentheses are often used to clarify, they can also introduce ambiguity by adding layers of meaning. This dual potential prompts reflection on the balance between clarity and complexity in communication and understanding.

Integration and Segmentation:

The role of parentheses in integrating and segmenting information mirrors philosophical discussions on the relationship between parts and wholes. How do individual elements contribute to the overall meaning, and how does segmentation affect our perception of unity and coherence?

The philosophy of parentheses reveals the profound impact of these seemingly simple punctuation marks on our understanding of language, logic, mathematics, and reality. By examining their function, symbolism, and implications, we gain insight into the intricate interplay between inclusion and exclusion, hierarchy and order, and clarity and ambiguity. Parentheses, therefore, are not just tools of communication but also gateways to deeper philosophical reflections on how we structure and interpret the world.

[philosophybits]

The concept of connections, a category of mediation and circulation, never flourished best in the sphere of circulation proper, the market, but in closed and monopolistic hierarchies. Now that the whole of society is becoming hierarchical, these murky connections are proliferating wherever there used still to be an appearance of freedom.

Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia, 3

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Fantasy, feminism, and philosophy

Recently, I picked up two novels published in the late 1980s by CJ Cherryh. I’ve been avoiding reading books since I finished my dissertation, as the act of opening a physical book seems a little too reminiscent of work, no matter the content - I’ve been enjoying audiobooks, but find it more difficult to listen to fiction than non-fiction, and so my consumption of published material has been skewed one way for several years.

I decided to break that cycle by returning to one of my pre-teen loves, which I read voraciously: high fantasy, the kind of novels with swords and sorcery right there on the cover, in all their pulpy ‘80s glory. I am a fast reader and can finish a ~250-page novel in an evening, given few interruptions, so long as I am hooked. I was looking for that hook.

I found it! And one other book by the same author, which I thought was high fantasy, but turns out to have a science-fiction, world-hopping backdrop. But I also am now armed with a lot more knowledge of feminist theory and the rise of women’s and feminist fiction* (well, science fiction) during the ‘70s and ‘80s, and so I found myself reading with an eye to the representation of women and a constant feminist narrative analysis going in the back of my brain (don’t be sorry; it was rad as hell). It takes a lot more for me to be satisfied with a narrative these days, and it’s not necessarily any sort of literary snobbery on my part, although I do consider myself to have higher standards now. I will read the pulpiest genre fic that I can find, but I will only truly recommend it if I find something redeeming in it - and not just plot and characters. I’m looking for a specific kind of feminist philosophy in the narrative.

Seems like a lot to ask from genre fiction, right? But to me (and to scholars in the entire discipline of English literature going back centuries), stories aren’t just stories: they’re vehicles embodying cultural attitudes and messages about the way the world works. Even a hastily-written piece of flash fiction will still contain the author’s biases and worldview in it, from the characters, the plot, and down to the words they choose to use (or avoid). Science fiction are stories (often) told in the future, but they are actually about present issues; fantasy are likewise stories (often) told in the past, but they reflect the author’s (and audience’s) view of and struggles within the present.**

And so I couldn’t help thinking, as I was reading, about my thesis’s second chapter, which was all about gender and post-apocalyptic science fiction during feminism’s second wave, because I think there’s a fair amount of those conclusions which are cross-applicable to fantasy from the same period.*** Not to put too fine a point on it, but post-apocalyptic sf is itself a fantastical narrative, and though it’s not “fantasy” as we think of the genre, it certainly draws from some of the same imaginative sources.

Some background

I’m gonna try to keep this brief, not least because others have written on it better and more comprehensively. In 17th century Europe, the Western scientific enterprise as we know it today was coalescing, and unfortunately for all subsequent practitioners of science, the values of 17th century European cismales were hard-coded into the philosophy underpinning the scientific worldview. Hence fun things like scientific racism, eugenics, devaluing animals and nature, and sexism, which keeps cropping up throughout the subsequent centuries, and is also what I’m going to focus on now.

You know what else was happening in 17th century Europe? Witch hunts. I’ll spare you a history lesson about it but in short, that’s the background cultural context of what was going on at the time. The milieu of misogyny, you might say. Carolyn Merchant, who wrote a pretty foundational ecofeminist text tracing this history, points to the writings of Francis Bacon as instrumental in advocating for “the control of nature for human benefit” in which he “used the language of nature as female to articulate an experimental philosophy that would extract nature's secrets.” (ENVIRONMENTALISM: FROM THE CONTROL OF NATURE TO PARTNERSHIP, 4).

Merchant argues that scientific discourse about nature codified the gender of nature as a female to be exploited, inviting abusive interrogation much in the same way as a torture victim on trial for witchcraft; her link between women’s persecution and the ramping-up of the exploitation of nature is echoed by socialist ecofeminists such as philosopher Val Plumwood in articulating the fundamentally misogynist underpinnings of a rationalist economics system that glorifies a separation of (masculine) intellectual reason from denigrated (feminine) bodily situatedness. Thus developed a scientific ethic that saw no problem with manipulation and use of the earth to satisfy scientific curiosity and capitalist gain within a patriarchal system of society.

Still with me? The female-nature connection in western culture is actually a lot older than 17th century, but before the industrial revolution there was emphasis on the mystery and power of nature and the life-giving capacity of women, which inspired respect or, at least, fond feelings for a “Mother Nature”. This crops up a lot in a lot of fantasy narratives, by the way, since most of them are set in a pre-industrialized past and also in some post-apocalyptic sf that assumes a catastrophe of some sort will set humanity back a millennia or two and with it will come this older worldview. Merchant argues that this older attitude served as a “cultural constraint” on the actions of human beings, since “[o]ne does not readily slay a mother, dig into her entrails for gold or mutilate her body” (Death 3). The advent of the industrial era and of scientific inquiry was made possible not just by advances in technology but in a philosophical shift in attitude to view feminine nature as inviting—and deserving—of violation by scientific and technological enterprises - which were, of course, male-coded.

Feminist critiques of (old) feminist fantasies

These two different attitudes - let’s call them the science fiction (post-17th century) and fantasy (pre-17th century) attitudes - aren’t as different as they might seem at first glance. Both adhere to an essentialist logic that is hierarchical, valuing “masculine civilization/culture” as inherently superior to “feminine nature.” I’m just going to mostly quote my thesis in the next two paragraphs here:

Essentialism understands “the feminine” as a repository of unchanging truths, determining substances, and ground of being, quite literally: it holds the historical European cultural conflation of women and nature as truth, and radical feminist political thought (and many feminist utopian fantasies) of the 1970s leaned into this binary, but flipped the moral hierarchy. Publications such as Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (1978) and Starhawk’s The Spiral Dance (1979), for example, embraced the identification of non-human nature and the feminine, celebrating the power of chthonic forces, the moon, fertility, and historical goddess worship. Radical, goddess, and other essentialist feminisms drew on deep ecology, following the same binary logic as Francis Bacon did, but reversing the moral weighting, holding the “male” forces of civilization, culture, and science as bad, or at least incredibly sus, given their collaboration with/outright endorsement of the systematic oppression/torture of women and the earth, if not the very reason for women’s suffering. Ciswomen’s bodies, traditionally the reason for their exclusion from cismale-only spiritual and intellectual spheres, were instead celebrated by some feminists as the ground of human life and part of the mystery of creation itself. ***

Feminist community based on an essentialist notion of cisfemale experience was and is a fantasy that, in addition to being violently exclusionary to trans and genderqueer persons and invested in creating and maintaining a distance between ciswomen and all others, at base replicates the same power structures that fuel patriarchal ideology, only with the values reversed. There is still a hierarchy in place, a flipped version of the fantasy attitude: there is the same conflation of women with nature and its consequent essentialist logic. Female empowerment is crucial to the realization of women’s full humanity, but its celebration at the expense of others leads directly to an ideology of exclusion, perpetuating the structures of oppression that make it necessary for female empowerment in the first place.

For example, some questions that bubble up when I encounter certain stories ask things like, Is this lady knight actually a strong female character, or a vehicle for a male power fantasy with a ciswoman subbed in and nothing else changed? Is this story about a witch/sorceress/magick-user main character really compelling, or is it subject to tropes from both the science fiction and fantasy attitudes, so she is either an evil conniving force to be subjugated (or romanced, depending on flavour) or a mystical feminine cipher in touch with the natural world…. or both? Both happens a lot.

In my thesis, I have a whole paragraph following those paragraphs on essentialism to disclaim that I’m not dissing the enormous contributions of many writers to fantasy whose works completely upended the hierarchical gender binary, boldly challenged gender roles, and stomped all around a genre that up until the ‘70s was almost exclusively made up of male writers. I’m convinced that we’re politically and socioculturally in those authors’ debt! I’m just skeptical of the fantasy genre because of the abovementioned history of the fantasy attitude. In my view, it takes an author who has an attitude (fantasy OR science fiction) that is consciously disloyal to its own roots in essentialist, sexist nonsense to write a narrative that isn’t fundamentally regressive.

Moar, tho…

It’s nice to fantasize about a world where the people whose gender that we identify with are pedestalized, taken care of, comforted, respected, given the benefit of the doubt, empowered, etc. Especially in this day and age when the demands of neoliberalism and late-stage capitalism pile up into an exhausting, overwhelming, threatening force against which it feels impossible to stand alone. Escaping into a world where powerful women are actually respected and can make tangible change in the world (through politics, or magic, or swinging a big sword around) is pretty great.

But it’s not wrong to demand more of our narratives. It’s not wrong to be critical of something that you love (I often joke that it’s the things that I love most that get the most harsh criticism). It’s not wrong to ask that the stories that I read articulate a non-binary, non-hierarchical society that people of all genders can move freely in, instead of being expected to act a certain way (and punished if they don’t perfectly conform).***** Flipping the gender hierarchy just isn’t enough anymore and isn’t even all that feminist, in the end.

In any case, I can highly recommend the work of CJ Cherryh; I think even thirty-five-odd years on, it still holds up because of the way she writes her characters, regardless of gender or age, as human beings and not essentialist tropes. I’m not surprised she won the Hugo, multiple times. She seems to have an underlying philosophy that values humans for who they are, not who they are supposed to be dependent on their predetermined roles in society.

What are some fantasy novels you would recommend? I’m not a huge short-story reader, and I’m a fan of wordplay and have spent the last eight years or so thinking about novels written by and for people living in the 1950s-80s. I need some good contemporary stuff! Or perhaps there are classics I am missing out on? Let me know in the comments!

PS: I’m indebted to the works of Donna Haraway, Celia Åsberg, Myra Hird, Helen Merrick, Élisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, Carolyn Merchant, Lisa Hogeland, and way too many others to list for influencing the direction of my ruminations here. Any issues are a result of my taking research on historical Canadian SF and bending it to apply to fantasy. ___

*They aren’t the same. It’s akin to assuming all Jewish people are Zionists. One is an identity category, the other a political one.

**Caveat: I’m not saying authors of sff sit down and are like “ah yes what issue griefing me right now am i going to put into this book” - it’s usually a subconscious thing. Sometimes authors do that! But it’s rare.

***Again, they aren’t the same: I’m not a scholar of fantasy, merely an observant fan who has a bit of a scholarly background in another genre literature.

**** This attitude is alive and well today in the politics of trans-exclusive radical feminists (TERFs), a subgroup of radical feminists whose reification of biological essentialism leads them to deny trans peoples’ identities. Fuck TERFs. Their philosophical worldview is warped.

******It’s also not wrong to love something even though it’s Problematic (tm), or just want to turn your brain off with a fluffy read. So long as you’re self-aware.

[philosophybitmaps]

[soysaucevictim]

Okay. This YouTuber is going a bit off the rails.

I don't think I've ever conceptualized affective empathy as sympathy - I always that that was COGNITIVE empathy.

As someone who has stated a lot abt how much more confidence in their sense for cognitive > affective empathy. *shrugs*

Also the cortisol bit on unchecked affective empathy feels a bit of a gloss-over abt why solely engaging/operating in that mode can be dangerous and lead to misunderstandings. Not just the initial stress of mirroring intense emotional states. :/

That all said. I DO get behind that like. The central mechanism explored by the entire Psychonauts franchise is many many exercises in cognitive empathy. (Might also be why I love it.)

[eyeoftheheart]

“the idea of "sphere" or of "realm" is frequently found in the texts in connection with the jhāna; that is to say, the jhāna introduce us to one of the "spheres" that are included in the objective hierarchy of the multiple states of being. There is even mention of "heavens": with the jhāna one is supposed to reach the "heavens of pure forms" or at least to prepare a way that leads to them. There is also mention of spirits or gods or angels of one or other jhāna sphere, and contacts that ascetics have had with them are discussed. Details are actually given. The bodhisattva, that is to say those who are advancing toward full illumination, are supposed, to begin with, to perceive a bright formless splendor; by purifying the "eye of knowledge" form also is perceived; at a later stage actual contacts ("to converse together") may even take place and, furthermore, they may come to recognize the hierarchical place of these beings ("to which celestial world they belong").”

― Julius Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts

[chenxhen]

Being Above Average but of Average Social Standing

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named. - Laozi, Tao Te Ching

I know I'm intelligent. I've never done an IQ test, because I believe it's just another unnecessary box people are placed into. But, growing up, I've been told by teachers and other intelligent people that I'm intelligent. I've always thought school was too easy, and was recommended into gifted programs. Everything from Math to English, I was either top of the class or close to the top. And I know I'm intelligent as well. I see it in the way I think and convey my thoughts. 

Apart from academic excellence, I also have many talents. My parents were very adamant on making me a "cultured" individual. I was placed into various extracurricular classes ever since I was four or five years old. Dance, visual arts, and vocal lessons were the ones I enjoyed the most, and also the ones that came most naturally to me. I also love to read and write prose and poetry. I grew up performing, and honing these skills. I'm very self-critical (another quality of intelligence), so I would always try to improve. I believe in the capacity of any human being to be able to do what any other human being can do. Of course, there are certain limitations resulting from our genes, but we're still all human beings. If one tries hard enough, the limits are boundless. 

I'm also quite good-looking. I've received many compliments, and I'm very confident in my appearance. I also dress well, work out, and take care of myself to maintain my appearance. 

And to add on top of all of this, I'm not a boring prude either. I know how to have fun. I'm quite witty, and I love to be silly. 

Now, I'm not saying all of this to boast. I'm not perfect, and I'm certainly not the best at everything. I can't play an instrument, sometimes it takes me a while to feel the beat of a song, I don't speak the most eloquently, and I certainly don't have model-like good looks. I'm aware of this. I see when other people are better in these ways. I always compliment people where they deserve to be. I was raised to be modest, humble, and to see the good in others. I'm just very well-rounded, and as a whole above average. 

Why does this matter, and why am I speaking on all of this? Well, despite excelling in many ways, I come from a very humble family, finances wise. As a result, my opportunities in life were always limited. Another crutch to this reality is that I'm a first generation immigrant. My parents and I came to Canada in 2007, after I had just completed first grade in China. We came here with very little money, and my parents had to restart their lives. They worked lower middle class or working class jobs to make ends meet. Our connections were limited to people in these sectors of society as well. The focus was always on making more money and climbing up the social ladder. This is why going to a good university, getting a good degree, a good job, and making a lot of money is so important to us. However, it created many problems for my up-bringing. 

My family was dysfunctional, the pressure was on me to dig us out of a hole I wasn't a part of digging, and I had very few friends. I had nothing material to show for my excellence. I'm also a female, with quite the baby face. People like to judge. Humans are superficial. And we create expectations of others in our minds out of these incorrect prejudices. When people first look at me, they more often than not think I'll be a weak, demure, and simple girl. They won't expect me to have all the abilities I hold. Whenever there's a disconnect between a person's expectations and realities, discomfort arises. It triggers a fight or flight response, because there's a sense of unfamiliarity and fear. The disconnect I cause in people's minds is probably quite great. People either love me or hate me because of it. All of this meant I had very little support from the people I most wanted support from - my family and my peers. I was intimidating to most people my age, and my family had very little time or money to spare me. 

As a result, I've always felt pressured to prove myself. There has always been such a great weight on my shoulders to do anything that would show people just how great I am, and what I can achieve beyond people's expectations of me. Eventually, I became drained. It's not easy when I'm able to see past what's in front of me and onto the bigger picture. I'm constantly helping others, when I lack the most support. I won't lie, some of this I did create for myself, because people just don't stimulate my brain enough, or aren't able to match up to me, and I don't feel comfortable asking those I consider "weaker" than me for help. 

At the age of 18, I began losing my mind to it all. I had very little friends - if any I considered close, I wasn't doing what I wanted, and I became depressed. I had just gotten into university, but it quickly dawned on me that this wasn't what I wanted at all. I was doing all of this in search of something that was in actuality meaningless to me. I don't care about money or status. All I want is to live a simple life, and let the days pass me by stress-free. I transferred out of several university programs, dropped out completely, and went to college instead. It made me feel incredibly insecure. Now I had absolutely nothing to show for who I am on the inside. I was back at square one. It felt like my life was starting over. This feeling only brought me down more. I felt like a failure, and I began to lose my way. 

Today, I'm settling back into who I am. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. The future seems incredibly uncertain, but there's one thing I'm incredibly certain of -  who I am and my value. I'm incredibly valuable. It sucks that most people just won't ever see that. But, I have accepted it for what it is. Society is made for the average person, and those who are on par with me will see me for all that I am. I just have to continue to be my best self, and hope for a future where I'm not taken for granted. Results are what matter, not the journey. 

If you are average, I'm telling you to be grateful for being average. It's the luckiest thing a person can be in this society. However, I won't ever dumb myself down to fit in. The results will be shown in my satisfaction with life, and self-actualization (a little Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs reference to end this off). 

Best to everyone. 

Love, Chenchen ♡

[omegaphilosophia]

Conservatism vs. Collectivism

The conflict between conservatism and collectivism stems from their fundamentally different views on tradition, the role of government, individual freedom, and societal organization. Conservatism emphasizes stability, tradition, and the preservation of established institutions, while collectivism focuses on the collective good, often advocating for state intervention and the redistribution of resources.

Key Points of Conflict:

Tradition vs. Radical Social Change:

Conservatism values tradition, continuity, and gradual change, believing that society’s established norms, customs, and institutions provide stability and order. Conservatives are wary of rapid, revolutionary change that could disrupt social cohesion and weaken traditional institutions like family, religion, and local communities.

Collectivism often seeks radical social change to address inequality and social injustice. It prioritizes the collective good over established traditions, which are sometimes seen as upholding outdated power structures or promoting inequality.

The conflict arises when collectivist movements push for significant changes (e.g., economic redistribution, dismantling hierarchical institutions) that conservatives believe threaten the stability and cultural values of society.

Individualism vs. Collective Good:

Conservatism, especially in its more libertarian form, tends to support individual rights and personal responsibility, believing that society functions best when individuals are free to pursue their own goals with minimal government interference. Conservatives often emphasize the importance of self-reliance and personal accountability.

Collectivism places the collective good above individual freedom, advocating for the redistribution of wealth and resources to ensure equality and social welfare. In this view, individuals have a duty to contribute to the well-being of the community, sometimes at the expense of personal freedom or property rights.

The conflict is rooted in differing views of personal autonomy versus societal obligations. Conservatives may see collectivist policies as infringing on individual freedoms and property rights, while collectivists argue that individualism neglects the well-being of the broader society.

Limited Government vs. State Control:

Conservatism typically supports a limited role for government, particularly in economic matters. Conservatives argue that too much government control leads to inefficiency, loss of personal freedoms, and an erosion of personal responsibility. They often advocate for free markets and private property rights as essential for economic prosperity.

Collectivism frequently involves strong government intervention in the economy and society to manage resources, regulate businesses, and ensure social equality. This can include state ownership of industries or wealth redistribution policies to achieve collective goals.

The tension arises when collectivist policies demand a larger and more active role for the state, which conservatives view as encroaching on individual liberties, private enterprise, and personal responsibility.

Social Hierarchy vs. Equality:

Conservatism often accepts the existence of natural or traditional hierarchies, whether in terms of wealth, social status, or authority. Conservatives argue that hierarchy is an inevitable and often beneficial aspect of society, providing order and stability.

Collectivism seeks to eliminate or reduce social hierarchies, aiming for greater social and economic equality. This can involve redistributive policies that conservatives view as undermining meritocratic principles or rewarding laziness.

The conflict centers on whether inequality is a natural and acceptable part of society (as conservatives often believe) or something to be actively corrected through state intervention (as collectivists believe).

Moral and Cultural Values vs. Secular, Egalitarian Ideals:

Conservatism is frequently tied to moral and cultural values, often rooted in religious or historical traditions. Conservatives believe these values provide the ethical foundation for a stable and just society, emphasizing concepts like duty, honor, and respect for authority.

Collectivism often promotes secular and egalitarian ideals, focusing on material equality and social justice. Collectivists may see traditional moral frameworks as perpetuating inequality or oppression, and they tend to prioritize equality over the preservation of cultural or religious norms.

The conflict arises when conservative values of tradition and authority clash with collectivist ideals that challenge those norms in favor of greater equality and state-enforced fairness.

Social Stability vs. Social Experimentation:

Conservatism prioritizes social stability, believing that change should be incremental and respectful of historical context. Conservatives argue that radical change can destabilize society and lead to unintended consequences.

Collectivism often encourages social experimentation in pursuit of collective goals, such as restructuring the economy or implementing new social policies. These changes are seen as necessary to address systemic inequalities and improve societal well-being.

The conflict comes when collectivist policies introduce social changes that conservatives fear will erode long-standing institutions or lead to instability.

The conflict between conservatism and collectivism lies in their opposing views on tradition versus social change, individual freedom versus collective responsibility, and the role of government in managing society. Conservatives prioritize stability, personal responsibility, and limited government, while collectivists advocate for social equality, strong state intervention, and the pursuit of the common good.

[philosophybits]

The serf is in essence different from the knight, but a reference to divine right is necessary to legitimize this statutory defense.

Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth