Nor should you. No-one expects you to give it away. No social change was ever achieved without violence.
-
-
Replying to @w_guppy
Then what do you mean by essential? Equality could come about if the party wishing to create it possesses the most force, a purely contingent outcome
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
1- All life is essential in that it necessarily exists - outside of arbitrary constructs there is no reason to prioritise one life above another. 2- Equality cannot be "created" by any "party" whether you mean that in the sense of a cohesive political body or otherwise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
'All life is essential, now give me the house or there'll be violence'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
Your life is not essential in the sense that you are required or sacred. It is essential in the sense that it NECESSARILY exists. You are confusing the two meanings of the word
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
I thought god necessarily existed, other beings were contingent upon god for their existence (medieval view) it's just a flux of matter and energy, nothing is necessary. Even if it was it wouldn't mean some people can't be rich and others poor
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
1/ Evidently. Isn't that where we find ourselves today? The question put forward was as to why achieving equality matters. The answer is because it concords with a sensible conception of nature. There is no reason why we should accept the arbitrary hierarchal distinctions which
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy @ParadiseDelayed
2/ are imposed upon us, unless we benefit from them. If we do not, there's no reason why we should, and violence is the simplest (really, the only) remedy to that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
A sensible conception of nature is that things of complexity and beauty only ever arise through Darwinian processes, equality means everything's equally garbage. Be as violent as you want, though violence tends to breed more not less hierarchy as far as I can see
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
Yes, and a sensible conception of Darwinism does not take natural selection on the simplistic Spencerian conception of "survival of the fittest," more appropriately and stupidly articulated as "dog eat dog".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Nor does it consider things only valuable insofar as their relation to other things - "If everything is equal, everything is shit" - but instead sees everything as part of a whole ecosystem which is in constant relation with itself
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.