[OOC] Myriad Reality

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

Don't worry yourself over it; I know none of ours will conflict.

"Yeah but you also think that people are accountable for things that their ancestors did"

Except I don't.

@Webmaster

You believe in original sin, so yes you do.

[Meta]

<Snipped quote by Webmaster>

You believe in original sin, so yes you do.

@The World

The idea is that everyone sins anyway so it's a moot point. Children don't go to Hell ever, which disproves that notion.

[Bishop]

@Meta That where I wanna point out that you're wrong. You explicitly state that morality and abstract feelings "has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."

But the world revolves around those abstract feelings and ideas. One CEO has the brilliant idea to harvest a whole forest in order to fulfill his selfish desire for greater material profit. All these actions are fueled by abstracts feelings and wanting. You can;t say that they have no effect whatsoever on the world around us.

Perhaps, but do we know that people won't self-govern well enough? Whether they will or not, the idea of anarchy isn't that it's superior because it leads to more happiness (not enough data to conclusively say), but rather that it is the most logical state to be in. Logic doesn't take human thoughts or feelings into account. So in the end, I'm not saying that a naturalistic point of view means that you should end up believing you'd be happier in anarchy, satisfied, or in any way better off. Instead, I'm saying that logically speaking, anarchy is the path to go down when taking pure facts and concrete truths into consideration

I'm sorry but isn't it more logical to live a long and safe life than to die abruptly? Order is logical, anarchy and chaos are illogical.

it's part of why the animal kingdom is in anarchy—it doesn't exactly have a system of feelings and ideas of what "ought" to be.

... don't know how to tackle this.
So firstly, animals also have no logic. They function purely on instinct. So you comparing the animal kingdom and how the animals are ruled by anarchy, to humans, basically means that only human animals want anarchy. Anarchy is survival of the fittest, it isn't based on logic at all, it is based purely on raw strength and the individual power to survive without anyone but yourself protecting you. Which logical being would want that?

[Meta]

@Bishop

You miss that I also qualified that statement. It only impacts the world through humans, and not directly. Anything "real" in the sense that I'm using it has a direct impact on physical reality, humans present or otherwise.

Other than the fact that you believe you would be "worse off" in an anarchy (despite the lack of data), that doesn't impact the logic of the system as a whole. You're viewing it on an individual level, which has no bearing on what system is the most logical to implement, because that is on a collective level. I even mentioned before that it's totally possible for you to personally not desire anarchy, but that doesn't change that for aforementioned reasons, it is still the most logical system (even if it perhaps isn't logical to desire on a person level e.g. An emperor).

I know several beings who would want that, but that's not relevant. I also don't claim that animals operate based on logic. Rather, logic operates on its own; anarchy is the "default state" of a society, just like in the animal kingdom, because it doesn't require abstract and undefinable concepts—there is no consensus, no assumptions, no abstractions, just the raw and unfiltered structure of the world. In fact, the idea that animals can't operate on logic advances this argument because it shows that it is standalone, independent of thought (as is required of logic). You're conflating the idea of human desire and logic itself, which exists independent of humans. Logic operates on its own and isn't impacted by anything any of us think.

I would also like to point out that you are mistaken on the details of anarchy. Anarchy is a system based on self-preservation. People can make agreements, deals, or anything else even without being the fittest as long as they contribute. Farmer Jim can hire brute Tom to guard him if he's able to trade. It's a mutual system of consent for every human involved. I don't claim that every naturalist should desire anarchy, nor do I claim that every naturalist should believe anything in particular. Instead, I sought to prove that on a purely logical level, anarchy is the most optimal system of all. Even if no human desired it, that wouldn't change that it is the naturalistically superior system.

[souleaterfan320]

@Meta That where I wanna point out that you're wrong. You explicitly state that morality and abstract feelings "has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."

But the world revolves around those abstract feelings and ideas. One CEO has the brilliant idea to harvest a whole forest in order to fulfill his selfish desire for greater material profit. All these actions are fueled by abstracts feelings and wanting. You can;t say that they have no effect whatsoever on the world around us.

<Snipped quote>

I'm sorry but isn't it more logical to live a long and safe life than to die abruptly? Order is logical, anarchy and chaos are illogical.

<Snipped quote>

... don't know how to tackle this.
So firstly, animals also have no logic. They function purely on instinct. So you comparing the animal kingdom and how the animals are ruled by anarchy, to humans, basically means that only human animals want anarchy. Anarchy is survival of the fittest, it isn't based on logic at all, it is based purely on raw strength and the individual power to survive without anyone but yourself protecting you. Which logical being would want that?

@Bishop

You two seem to be having fun.

[Meta]

<Snipped quote by Bishop>

You two seem to be having fun.

@souleaterfan320

Check the last few pages.

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

Check the last few pages.

@Meta

I'd rather not give myself a headache on top of stress from work.

[Bishop]

@Meta Well, seems I'm not checking the wordings correctly which leads to me having some questions and misunderstandings. Well let's leave that behind and argue on how anarchy could be better on the logical sense, as you described.

I'm convinced that if the governing systems would suddenly collapse, after the chaos had settled and communities had been formed, it wouldn't be any different from how it is now. There would still be a ruler at the head of the hierarchy who didn't go there because everyone thought he was a just and nice guy. He got to the top through exercising power and building influence, similar to how it is in today's government. He probably wouldn't give a crap about the people as long as he was in charge. In democracy they at least have to pretend, here he could just be a tyrant. So basically, he could become an oppressor and gather "votes" based on fear tactics. Wouldn't organizations with military training have the upper hand? They could easily force the general public to kneel before them. And the leaders would still fight among each other for different things.

It is given that there would be many other communities who valued freedom and the right for everyone to choose what they wanted and who they wanted for their leader if there was to be any. They could as well use a referendum to decide everything of importance. But I ask you this, knowing human nature, how many of those communities do you think would exist in compared to the ones with a tyrant as it's head?

And I'm only talking about communities and not isolated people because you would need to be part of a larger community in order to raise your chances of survival. And that is the logical way isn't it? Follow the way which raises your chances of survival? Isn't that what everything in this world thrives and lives for? To survive and leave a legacy?

In fact, the idea that animals can't operate on logic advances this argument because it shows that it is standalone, independent of thought (as is required of logic). You're conflating the idea of human desire and logic itself, which exists independent of humans. Logic operates on its own and isn't impacted by anything any of us think.

While logic itself is independent of thoughts etc etc, it is a tool used by us to achieve what we want. The animals have come to behave that way as a consequence of years upon years of evolution as they learned how to best adapt with the environment around them. But how much is that really worth? We, humans, have exterminated hundreds upon hundreds of species. How far did their purely logical way of living get them when compared to us, humans who are facing overpopulation? Haven't we done better on the aspect of survival and procreation?
As you said, on a purely logical level, anarchy like in the animal kingdom is naturalistically superior because the abstract values and terms that come with a governing system are removed, making everyone free. But isn't freedom another "abstract term"? Isn't the logical way of every living organism to survive, procreate and assure the survival of it's legacy on this earth? How would anarchy be logically better than the system that we currently have if it lacks on that front? Or do you want to argue that humans would have a higher rate of survival in anarchy and as so the population would grow even more than it has today?

[Meta]

@Bishop

The discussion isn't exactly about the practicality of anarchy, but alright.

I agree with this paragraph in its entirety.

Virtually none.

On a personal level, for the most part.

Animals don't live by logic, but yes, we as humans have done much better.

You're right, freedom is abstract. That's why I didn't use freedom as my qualifier.
Interestingly, humans are one of the only species in which not (virtually) 100% of the population wants to survive/procreate.
Not at all. That's why I never based the predefined "superior" to mean human survival, happiness, or even perceived value. Rather, humans could go totally extinct under anarchy and it wouldn't affect the point I was making because the rationality of the system is not based on its success, but rather the fewest logical flaws in implementing it.

If you want to debate the practicality of anarchy, I'm not your guy (Dark is around if you want to talk about that). I'm not a naturalist, so I also don't think that anarchy is a logical system. In fact, because of the very reasons you described, I believe a naturalistic system fails. I consider it illogical and don't follow it (and this might be where Dark responds to me because I said something negative about anarchy).

[souleaterfan320]

Socialism!

[Bishop]

@Meta Well that clarifies a lot.
So, can you mention this dark guy for me?

[Meta]

Socialism!

@souleaterfan320

Is naturalistically super illogical.

@Meta Well that clarifies a lot.
So, can you mention this dark guy for me?

@Bishop

@DarkwolfX37

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

Is naturalistically super illogical.

<Snipped quote by Bishop>

@DarkwolfX37

@Meta

=P

[DarkwolfX37]

@Meta Well that clarifies a lot.
So, can you mention this dark guy for me?

@Bishop

Yoness.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

Is naturalistically super illogical.

<Snipped quote by Bishop>

@DarkwolfX37

@Meta

Dude socialism is literally how we managed to get this far. That's what we used as tribes in order to not die off.

[Meta]

<Snipped quote by Meta>

Dude socialism is literally how we managed to get this far. That's what we used as tribes in order to not die off.

@DarkwolfX37

Top kek Venezuela.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Top kek Venezuela.

@Meta

>The definition not the modern attempts at doing it in a world that's capitalistic and therefor not able to support it anymore.

[Bishop]

@DarkwolfX37 So, can I ask, how is anarchy better in anyway besides having less undefinable abstract variables compared to any governments today?

[Meta]

@Bishop

I'd also like to thank you for conversing with me. I think it was constructive and accomplished a decent amount.

[Bishop]

@Meta Likewise. I had to read on some terms I hadn't heard of before.
There was a point, though, where I was going to question another thing but I decided that it would be foolish to tread on those waters. Unlike most you didn't rage in the middle of the argument and that's the best you can ask for from some person in the internet LOL