So the debate today in philosophy class argued about alienation and if we need to find a cure for it. The two sides are obvious, yes or no. The yes side took a very communist side and argued that all class systems, all divisions among people should be abolished, that everyone deserves an equal chance at doing what they want to do. This side argued that being forced into a certain career or lifestyle took away part of one's humanity, and thus such division should be abolished for the sake of humanity. The other side argued that division was not only necessary, but unavoidable. Man has a proclivity towards people who are similar to him, or have similar ideas or interests. Even in the face of equalization, where everyone has an equal chance, people with similar interests are drawn towards each other, and tend to divide themselves into groups.
People began arguing against the second side based on a larger scale. They seemed to be thinking purely in a governmental sense. The debater argued that natural leaders will always rise above others, and people will follow them. On a large scale this might not be the case, perhaps some natural-born leaders do not have the same opportunities of others to rise above entire countries, but they still tend to rise above the people around them in a local sense. William Wallace managed to rise above the Scottish people as he led them to war and freedom from England. This was a grand scale. He did not go to college, he never took classes on how to lead a revolution, and yet he was able to do so. Martin Luther, George Washington, Charlemagne; these are all people who rose up and led people to some goal. I don't have names, but on a smaller scale, in local settings, there are people who arise everyday in leadership because it is part of their nature. People who notice a problem in their hometown and seek to fix it. People who have a dream, and seek to make it a reality.
I think it is obvious which side I hold to. There will always be divisions among people, you will meet people that you just can't stand or can't comprehend. And then there will be people that you just connect with and understand. We naturally tend toward people who are like us, who share our ideas and hopes and interests. Even with the abolishment of official classes like they had back in Medieval Times, people will spearate themselves into groups, or cliques, and other people will be excluded from these groups. It's natural for humanity to do this, we can't help it. Such is life. The end.
It is one thing to have varied social groups with leaders and followers. But what about the drastic differences in economic groups? Is it natural and fair for people to beg for food on the street while others live in houses with 25 fireplaces and 14 1/2 bathrooms? I guess what I'm saying is, we probably can't and probably shouldn't do away with all divisions, but there are some that need to be less severe.
ReplyDeleteLess severe maybe, but poverty will never be done away with completely in this world. If all economic classes were dispelled, and the money throughout the world was spread out across the board, I'm pretty sure most people would be well off to begin with. The problem is that there are those who cannot control themselves with money, as well as those who would make bad decisions, and in the end those classes would rise up again. It may take months, years, possibly a few decades, but it would happen. And this goes for the other side too, those that understand how money works and can make good economic decisions would begin to acquire more wealth. I don't think this is a controllable issue.
ReplyDeleteNot to say that we shouldn't help the poor and needy, but we need to understand that there will always be poor and needy people to help.
I agree that we'll always have the poor and needy. As far as lessening the severity of the issue, I would be more inclined to do it from the other direction - people who are disgustingly wealthy and have eighteen different houses just because they can could stand to lose a few bucks for the sake of someone who will freeze this winter because they don't even have ONE house. So I guess what I'm advocating is not exactly communism, but rather a world in which people who have would be inclined to give in proportion to what they have. Yes, idealistic. ^_^
ReplyDeleteSOmething that more recently came to mind regarding this is that typically(and I'll admit not always), those with a gross amount of money have earned it. They worked hard their entire life and made careful decisions to arrive at the financial state which they are currently in. Is it fair to ask them(or force them) to give up their hard-earned money to those who may not even be trying to better their own situation, or have made terrible decisions in the past with their own money? I don't think so. I like the idea of having the disgustingly rich giving me money, but it's not fair to them if I stop working because they're giving me money. And that's what has developed in America, the poor rely on the rich for provision, and have stopped trying to get back on their feet. They've become lazy.
ReplyDeleteWow, that last comment of mine was so... republican.
ReplyDelete