I was just reading up on the first labor strike in recorded history in the mortuary complexes in Egypt. The mortuary workers had received irregular payment, which they argued was unfair according to Maat, the cosmic law of justice in Egyptian mythology. This was a cosmic law which had obviously been in play in some form for a long time, and was the source of the state's legitimacy. Apparently Maat included something about "fair" distributive justice. So instead of being punished, they were paid appropriately by the state. It's easy to appeal to justice when you have a 2,000 year (at that time) legacy of political culture with norms that are rooted in the very pores of civilization. Perhaps because it really was a somewhat stable concept that had some purchase simply because everyone in society had some shared sense of what it meant, their place within it, and what they were owed and what they owed others according to its principles. Aristotle describes justice as a type of virtue without the possibility of excess. Funny how this came out right as I'm covering utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory in my classes. I've been reflecting a lot on the role of normative concepts like justice in political organizing and the way leftists either reject them or embrace them, in both cases in a naive way. Much of which I think can be tied back to Marx's own ambivalence regarding those concepts, seeing as how he rejected the hyper-moralizing of the religious communists of his own era. But then he praises the 8 hour work day as a "humble magna carta" in capital or something along those lines, and I found some letter where Engels says he and Marx were only ambivalent about moral language because English and German communists were far too attached to those concepts.
I haven't read any of Lovecraft's works but I do wonder if his emphasis of passivity before those entities had more to do with trying to create the impression of an incomprehensible god that is truly worthy of the moniker in a sense beyond potential Sisyphean sameness of the universe. Awe in a way is just your own business after all so how DO you interact with that which is beyond? Side note there's a number of Lovecraft influenced works going around. Saya no Uta (short and different; One of the regular posters here has a related PFP btw) and Genshin Impact (don't read it it's needlessly long; makes good money though) to name a couple.
Justice makes for a terrible idol so one must ask: Whose justice? Human thinking is biased in concentric circles starting from you. So what can justice ever hope to be but your justice?
Don't get me wrong justice isn't unimportant to me. But just because I feel something be injust I don't use it as a reliable measure of truth. There's plenty interesting ways to seek truth and justice is more of a motivator to me. So you don't get to insist to me that what you speak of is reliably the just thing to do. But we can talk about that. For example people dying is never "just" but so where's the outrage about death by "old age"?
In politics emotivism seems to be the only way to engage with the masses, normative logic has never been a useful political tool of communication with the masses. That's why I find any pleading from politicians to "just tell the truth" is a conscious or subconscious demand to acquiesce to the already formed internal morals of the demander. "Tell the truth/don't lie" is never literally a request to just "spit facts" or argue the logic to them. Any means of communication between social executive branch and the populous will have to retain an emotive core and I believe it has always been the case well before capitalism. But of course emotivism is essentially bias manipulation and thus useless for deduction.
@@VarnVlog Ok then I genuinely still dont understand what emotivism is. I thought it was a method of convincing someone of something by applying arguments that will only work on them in their personal mind palace, or a collective consciousness or whatever instead of trying to convince someone of something based on Kantian logical deduction.
@@StevePM42 good point. I actually know that j is y in Hebrew and Yiddish and German and forget it. That said, that makes almost all Semi-Anglization even more about distinction.
I was just reading up on the first labor strike in recorded history in the mortuary complexes in Egypt. The mortuary workers had received irregular payment, which they argued was unfair according to Maat, the cosmic law of justice in Egyptian mythology. This was a cosmic law which had obviously been in play in some form for a long time, and was the source of the state's legitimacy. Apparently Maat included something about "fair" distributive justice. So instead of being punished, they were paid appropriately by the state. It's easy to appeal to justice when you have a 2,000 year (at that time) legacy of political culture with norms that are rooted in the very pores of civilization. Perhaps because it really was a somewhat stable concept that had some purchase simply because everyone in society had some shared sense of what it meant, their place within it, and what they were owed and what they owed others according to its principles.
Aristotle describes justice as a type of virtue without the possibility of excess. Funny how this came out right as I'm covering utilitarianism, deontology and virtue theory in my classes. I've been reflecting a lot on the role of normative concepts like justice in political organizing and the way leftists either reject them or embrace them, in both cases in a naive way. Much of which I think can be tied back to Marx's own ambivalence regarding those concepts, seeing as how he rejected the hyper-moralizing of the religious communists of his own era. But then he praises the 8 hour work day as a "humble magna carta" in capital or something along those lines, and I found some letter where Engels says he and Marx were only ambivalent about moral language because English and German communists were far too attached to those concepts.
I always like that tom drum on the left...
I haven't read any of Lovecraft's works but I do wonder if his emphasis of passivity before those entities had more to do with trying to create the impression of an incomprehensible god that is truly worthy of the moniker in a sense beyond potential Sisyphean sameness of the universe. Awe in a way is just your own business after all so how DO you interact with that which is beyond? Side note there's a number of Lovecraft influenced works going around. Saya no Uta (short and different; One of the regular posters here has a related PFP btw) and Genshin Impact (don't read it it's needlessly long; makes good money though) to name a couple.
Justice is sacred. It must be enforced. 🌩
Justice makes for a terrible idol so one must ask: Whose justice? Human thinking is biased in concentric circles starting from you. So what can justice ever hope to be but your justice?
Don't get me wrong justice isn't unimportant to me. But just because I feel something be injust I don't use it as a reliable measure of truth. There's plenty interesting ways to seek truth and justice is more of a motivator to me. So you don't get to insist to me that what you speak of is reliably the just thing to do. But we can talk about that. For example people dying is never "just" but so where's the outrage about death by "old age"?
In politics emotivism seems to be the only way to engage with the masses, normative logic has never been a useful political tool of communication with the masses. That's why I find any pleading from politicians to "just tell the truth" is a conscious or subconscious demand to acquiesce to the already formed internal morals of the demander. "Tell the truth/don't lie" is never literally a request to just "spit facts" or argue the logic to them. Any means of communication between social executive branch and the populous will have to retain an emotive core and I believe it has always been the case well before capitalism.
But of course emotivism is essentially bias manipulation and thus useless for deduction.
@@tmsphere Emotivism isn’t a technique. It’s about the content of what you are pushing, not just how you do it. Emotivism with masses is tailism.
@@VarnVlog Ok then I genuinely still dont understand what emotivism is. I thought it was a method of convincing someone of something by applying arguments that will only work on them in their personal mind palace, or a collective consciousness or whatever instead of trying to convince someone of something based on Kantian logical deduction.
Nietzsche Strikes Back
He's the G.O.A.T.
Benjamin should be pronounced Benyamin so those are both wrong.
@@StevePM42 good point. I actually know that j is y in Hebrew and Yiddish and German and forget it. That said, that makes almost all Semi-Anglization even more about distinction.
@@StevePM42 and distinction in the Bourdieu sense
@@VarnVlog so true... They get a basic pronunciation totally wrong and still try to shame others...