Philosophy thread. Discuss political implications.
>>128232950
Nobody cares if you care or don't care.
>>128232950
FUCKING
>>128232950
LEAF
>>128232950
The human mind...fragile, like a robin's egg.
>>128232950
You dont have to care about any one anon. But Im gonna defend the people who care about me
In turn no one else will care about you and you will die miserable.
>>128233315
yeah, but consider this:
if everybody were to be selfish, would that make the society better? everybody stands up for their own. people would have to learn how to be strong, and the ones that can't make it, would fall victim to natural selection, improving the overall society.
>>128233426
but should i care about everyone then?
where do you draw the line?
who do you care about anon?
You don't have to care about anyone, however you will also have to accept that if you aren't willing to give anything to anyone, no one will ever even entertain the idea of giving anything to you.
Ultimately it's your choice and there's not really a wrong answer unless you're actively harming others.
>>128233579
what about the political implications though?
which society is better?
a selfless one?
or a selfish one?
The body is not one member, but many
Now are they many, but of one body
>>128232950
You should only care about people who are with you.
You are the only one who can decide what the criteria, traitors, turncoats and snakes who be discarded even if they are valuable assets to your existence.
You always be hurt if you seek to gain from those who were to turn against you. I have not yet seen a person who would give me a grain of truth, so I am now alone.
>>128232950
altruisim and tribalism
you shouldn't "care" about others but it benefits you, your survival and the survival of your progeny. Nihilism and anti-socialism is bad, family and community good, others probably feel that way. Unite under a banner, find like minded folk, stop wanking to trannys and get your shit together. Your life has meaning and value, I wish you the best of luck.
>>128233534
As someone who has been thinking about the idea of personal autonomy for a long time, It's a balancing act. Societies are made from communities and communities are made of individuals. No individual can do everything without giving up a lot. If you want to give it up, fine, but there is a reason we form communities; because it's mutually beneficial for those in the community.
The problem is when people want to be in the community and don't bring anything of value to it. If that happens to much, you've got a welfare state which inevitably turns tyrannical.
The fact is that everyone SHOULD shoulder their own responsibilities to achieve personal autonomy within their community. Those are the only people who can give to the community and reap the fruits of being part of the community with a clear conscience.
>>128233758
Both are undesirable, because reality doesn't operate exclusively on extremes. For a society to work you need people who are driven enough by their own ambitions to carry their own weight and the strong give back to the society voluntarily, which is rewarded by allowing them to climb the dominance hierarchy and pass on their genes and live well.
>>128232950
Because you live in a society based on the division of labor and you need the aid of other people to fulfill your needs beyond the most basic level. Being too much of an asshole anti-social could literally kill you. Lucky for you capitalism doesn't require you to be nice or even that selfless only that you pay.
>>128233758
>Be a member of society
>Face down the dragon
>Take it's gold
>Share it with the community
>Get lauded as a hero and a good woman to breed with
This is how men are supposed to work in society.
>>128232950
Because in the long run they can be important assets. At least that is the way edgy people think.
>>128233534
You fail to see that altruism is the result of natural selection. Not saying we should go full communist, but our willingness to help each other even if it doesn't necessarily make sense gives humanity a competitive edge. >>128234046 has it right. Ultimately the individual relies on the collective in modern society; however, the collective should not be seen as anything other than simply a large group of individuals working with their own self interests that happen to be in line with each other.
>>128234613
And now the good women are turned into feminists and it would only make it more fun for the knights to tame her
>>128237181
Women form their own dominance hierarchies (of which feminists are on the low end), but that hierarchy is informed by society as a whole. If you want less insufferable feminists, it starts with becoming someone who women find value in being with. Much like in society, the more value you bring to the table, the more women will adapt. Your position in the hierarchy is not dependent entirely on fixed factors and you can move up, but you have to sort yourself out before you can expect anyone around you to do the same.