Adventures of blasphemy, anger, and failure in philosophy

Monday, April 26, 2010

The Angry Hypocrite Despises his own Tribal Instincts

If you're familiar with my philosophy (and who isn't, really, given the world-renowned renaissance figure of towering influence that I am, with almost four followers on blogspot, and a couple dozen others who are nervously aware of the existence of this thing), you'll know that if there's one thing in the world I despise, it's the irrational instincts that happen to pervade mankind. Those instincts, at least for the social judgment aspects, have a deep root: tribalism. Tribalism was an attitude born from the days when you and your kin stuck close and fought together over scarce resources. Any outsiders were treated with suspicion at best and outright hostility at worst. However, even as civilizations began to develop and the logical rationale faded away, the tribalist attitude persisted.

Tribalism not only causes rifts on its own; it often exacerbates existing conflicts (or the converse, where other factors exacerbate tribal conflicts). Religions very often rise and fall along tribal lines, with the Arabs fighting to convert the pagan Berbers, the European Christians crusading against the Muslim Turks and Arabs, and so on. Even today, for example in Sudan (Muslim 'Arabs' fighting against Christian 'Blacks') and Nigeria, and the continuing ethnic distinction drawn between the Jews and other white races (far more culturally visible than the distinction between, say, the French and the Germans), religion and tribal animosities go hand-in-hand. In the end, it simply undermines rational thinking and promotes prejudices, which is bad for progress (I consider progress the only true good).

There are probably a few people who are naive enough to think that I succeed in my efforts to practice what I preach (the very existence of the blog actually attests that I don't; logically, if I harbor extreme opinions, I should try to keep them mostly to myself because of the risk of social stigma). As I already stated, this is unfortunately untrue. Every time the Olympics come up, I try to remind myself that according to logic, I ought to root for those countries that most closely resemble my values. And I partially succeed; for example, I always root for the Swedes and the Swiss during the Winter Olympics, mostly because I want prestige to go to a country whose government is very similar to the style of liberal democracy I support. However, the main problems with my logic appear when the Summer Olympics come around; I root for China, on the basis of half my bloodline and Israel on the basis of the other half. I know that the Chinese government is not exactly a paragon of freedom and democratic values; I know that the Israeli government, particularly those that have been unfortunate enough to be headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, are not exactly kumbaya-singing peace-lovingly rational and that they infuriatingly (given that I value Israel's security out of a tribalist sympathy for Israel) provoke the Palestinians and other Arab groups when there is a chance for peace. But I root for them anyway. And these sentiments are real, not just confined to the sports arena.

I'm currently trying to think how this tribalist problem can be countered. Unfortunately, it seems simply too deep-rooted to effectively combat. Hopefully one day we'll realize the importance of a united sentient front to spread life and thinking as far as we can. Until then, we'll be mired in that same old ugly thought: as the War Nerd so aptly put it, "My tribe YAY, your tribe BOO". What an infantile creed that is.

2 comments:

  1. support utterly random shit.

    case in point: usain bolt. WHO THE FUCK IS HE AND WHERE THE FUCK DID HE COME FROM?!! WELL WHO THE FUCK GIVES A SHIT I LIKE HIM HE'S FUCKING COOL.

    amen. i don't support america because it's a goddam democracy. i don't support your mom because i want to do her.

    add the utter illogicality of the mix to your tribalist tendencies. support the whole fucking world for fuck's sake. pick and chose like a drunkard on crack. there is no reason, in the end, why one is better than the other. oh sure there may be a greater number of athletes here and there who do better or worse depending on how much their countries give a shit, but who gives a shit when you're watching? you do, and you can chose where you want to give your shit. if it means randomly, go do it.

    in all honesty, people like to side with factions because doing so gives them a place in the world, and people to relate to. if you can get past that shit, and can relate with yourself and your own definition, well goddam, MAGIC all your little nationalist problems are gone. if i were black, that'd mean i would screw over supporting other black people because they're black. if i were anything, i'd screw support simply because they're similar to me, because they share similar thoughts. the thing is, you define how you interact with people based on their interactions with you, not some bullshit excuse for association with something similar that passes as a lame excuse for being an acquiantance. or however the fuck you spell that shit, goddam.

    goddam. i thought the answer to this one would be most easily answered by you sir angry philoshitter. if you really care who posted this comment, take a whild fucking guess and go with some random herb that tastes awful for a fucking pseudonym. yeah that's me jorge fucking cilantro.

    happy anger!

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks for the comment but please take a coherency pill and rewrite. i will explain what i mean with three arguments.

    the first is logical:

    what the hell are you talking about? relation to definition? what the fuck does that mean? and why are you talking about usain bolt? i know he's cool. i like him. i know people side with factions because they like to relate to people, i just wish they'd choose the factions based on a little more than race/no fucking reason at all when the 'factions' we're talking about are important, like countries.

    the second is stylistic:

    consider revising so that less than one third of your words are swears, you sound like you're going to mix concrete and bum money off your parents for a living. and by 'for a living', i mean for your crack and porn addictions.

    and the third is ad hominem:

    you suck.

    there you go. these three arguments are distinct, but i feel all three are valid. happy anger to you too!

    -The Angry Philosopher

    ReplyDelete

Followers