Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 21, 2021 20:58:26 GMT
I doubt there are good societies. A human being isn't for living in society. Bad habits and the limit of resources transforms us into the series of plural objects. I don't think anybody is able to object the view that there has to be only one human. The universe isn't for five, six, hundred, seventeen billions, sixty, or two people; the universe must belong to one living being. None of us loves another one, except for enslaving that 'beloved one'. I will call such a view as an absolute individualism.
What is societalizm? Is a theory that is contrary to the absolute individualism. Unlike to individualism, the societalizm takes society and only the society as the main and the mainest element in the universe. Simply - there mustn't be individuals; only society is the force and a suitable form of live for the universe. No doubt that the societalizm is about pluralism. It denies the one, while it represents the many: the set of more, than one. I cannot be an adept of societalizm. This view is disgusting.
Marxism of all the kinds takes some certain societies as the progressive and the most prominent forms of existence. They view the communistic society as the ultimate form that is able to live in happiness. I really doubt that such a fairy tale works. No matter how many people you need to eliminate to leave certain ones to live, the society will continue to be the mess; it cannot be anything else, than the mess. Plurality is a mess. That's one of the reasons why the Marxism works like a constant revolutionary force: the mess cannot act, but to change anything (even changing itself). It is the Ouroboros: a snake biting its tail. It is the endless complete mess.
For whom the societalism is dangerous? For individuals: singles, loners, escapers, monks, outcasts, dictators, tyrants, mass killers, and so on. As you can see there are eight archetypes which can be divided into two main categories: a) good ones; b) bad ones. To the latter category we can attach those loners who want to harm the other people; in other words, outcasts, dictators, tyrants, and mass killers are not truly individuals, but parasitic individuals. I don't really know which are you, but for any individual is not good to be drown into the society's puddle.
As for me, it's impossible for any societalizms to work: mess cannot work. The mess is the same as the chaos. So, anyone who wants to leap into the chaos has to choose a societalizm.
Also I have to admit that there are some strictly objection to the definition of the societalizm as a mess. Some might object that a group of objects or a number of deities can work well: as clocks, cars, and the other mechanism. But the thought of mine is that: there are no ideal object that contains parts. Only no parts objects can be takes as the most ideal. If you want to exist as an individual you have to destroy either conquer everything, or to eliminate that is not you. You and only you is the one and the only.
What is societalizm? Is a theory that is contrary to the absolute individualism. Unlike to individualism, the societalizm takes society and only the society as the main and the mainest element in the universe. Simply - there mustn't be individuals; only society is the force and a suitable form of live for the universe. No doubt that the societalizm is about pluralism. It denies the one, while it represents the many: the set of more, than one. I cannot be an adept of societalizm. This view is disgusting.
Marxism of all the kinds takes some certain societies as the progressive and the most prominent forms of existence. They view the communistic society as the ultimate form that is able to live in happiness. I really doubt that such a fairy tale works. No matter how many people you need to eliminate to leave certain ones to live, the society will continue to be the mess; it cannot be anything else, than the mess. Plurality is a mess. That's one of the reasons why the Marxism works like a constant revolutionary force: the mess cannot act, but to change anything (even changing itself). It is the Ouroboros: a snake biting its tail. It is the endless complete mess.
For whom the societalism is dangerous? For individuals: singles, loners, escapers, monks, outcasts, dictators, tyrants, mass killers, and so on. As you can see there are eight archetypes which can be divided into two main categories: a) good ones; b) bad ones. To the latter category we can attach those loners who want to harm the other people; in other words, outcasts, dictators, tyrants, and mass killers are not truly individuals, but parasitic individuals. I don't really know which are you, but for any individual is not good to be drown into the society's puddle.
As for me, it's impossible for any societalizms to work: mess cannot work. The mess is the same as the chaos. So, anyone who wants to leap into the chaos has to choose a societalizm.
Also I have to admit that there are some strictly objection to the definition of the societalizm as a mess. Some might object that a group of objects or a number of deities can work well: as clocks, cars, and the other mechanism. But the thought of mine is that: there are no ideal object that contains parts. Only no parts objects can be takes as the most ideal. If you want to exist as an individual you have to destroy either conquer everything, or to eliminate that is not you. You and only you is the one and the only.
