King_Simp

(Archive link here:https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.88346/page/n50/mode/1up)

I had to read C.S Lewis's "Abolition of Man" for an ethics class and I tried just getting through it without getting annoyed, but I couldn't and wanted to share my thoughts

I'm not expecting anyone here to really like the work (it's idealistic nonsense), but I would like a second pair of eyes to go over it and see if there's something ive missed from my analysis.

1.Im really bugged by his use of one Dao definition while not acknowledging the other. Basically (to my knowledge) there are two conceptions of the Dao. One is the confucian Dao, which is somewhat close to how Lewis uses it, in that it's the traditional and "ideal" set of values ypu base your morals off of. The Daoist conception is that the true (unnamed) Tao is the way of the universe, and cannot be described but rather experienced. [This is the broad generalization. I know that this is not exhaustive, I just wanted to point out the difference since i was confused the first time I read it]

It would be like if a Chinese philosopher refered to the English conception of the "State of Nature," while only conceiving of the Hobbsian definition and not the Lockian one. It'd be somewhat insulting, no?

2. There is a rational conception for selflessness though. I'm not rationalist/liberal humanist or whatever, but there is a pretty simple logic.

I need society to survive

Society is good for me

I should work to preserve society

maybe this doesn't cover the selfless actions of going to war and such (although, whether that's a good thing really depends on the war), but its pretty basic to point out that soldiers do get many boons for going to war, and surviving. There hasn't been a single society where you're not promised benefits for this (whether they come to fruition is another thing). I don't even believe in the rationalist line of reasoning here, but it bugs me that he dismisses it without much thought.

3. There's kind of a chicken and egg problem with the "Tao" here. It is, apparently, so natural that basically every society on earth follows the same values with minor differences. However, conversely, the Tao must always be taught and never is instinctual or comes naturally to children who are not taught the "tao."

Obviously human society survived long enough for people like Plato and Confucious to write about it, so it's not like they originated the "tao." So where did it come from? If it's natural than it must come from somewhere originally and ergo doesn't have to be taught. If it's not, then it's unexplained how it appeared. Of course you should teach children these things [to use an analogy, you wouldn't wait for teens to figure out the method of calculating a derivative instead of just teaching them how to], but it comes into question why his criticism of these English books matter. If these values are so natural, they have to originate from somewhere within the human mind without being taught, no? [Of course, class society and Hegemony explains this, but I've given up hope that British people can understand any of that]

4.The entire third chapter kinda kills the book for me. It feels like reading Orwell again. It has this banal Kantian view of government and coercive state power and just really pathetic. "Uh oh, better follow these traditional values or these scary conditioners are going to get you." Why these conditioners are here, and why people put up with them, is never answered really. They just are. It's never questioned if these traditional values are moral either. Was every genocide committed by the Roman's, british, etc. all caused by supposed "moral innovators?"

5.He has a wierd obsession with contraceptives. He claims that "the conditioners" will essentially control what humanity will be through eugenics via contraceptives. This would be wierd normally, but this was written in 1947. The nazis didn't use condoms and birth control to do eugenics...they killed people. And even when eugenical regimes aren't committing genocide with guns and gas chambers, they still sterilize undesirables and disabled people, and forbid intermarriage between them. Eugenics isn't some thing where nebulous people in control try to make humanity better because muh authorarianism. Eugenics is something spawned out of 18th century "scientific" racism. It's not just controlling who gets to sire children by giving people IUDS, it's murder, deportation, castration and sterilization.

Edit: Forgot to add this point. It's a really odd idea that conditioners just control "humanity." Eugenics isn't just something where a bunch if technocrats want to make humanity better or whatever. Most (if not all eugenicists) believe that their group is inherently superior. So the point is that these eugencists want there to only be their group of people (usually, white germanic capitalist/aristocrats). The problem is not some nebulous wishy washy idealism about "oh what about the power we hold over future generations." The problem is the erasure of entire groups of people, ethnic, disabled, etc.

Usually this stuff gets posted here so I'm surprised no one has said anything.

Honestly I'm a little lost on what's happening? The west is obviously manufacturing consent for something, but idk what. More sanctions? More weapons to ukraine? More social welfare cuts? The revealed occupation of Ukraine by the west?

Or is Russia actually instigating this on their own? If so why? Just to test the current resolve of NATO? Maybe to see what NATO currently wants to do, in the event Ukraine falls and Russia/whatever Ukrainian state exists after has a border with a belligerent west?

I have a feeling the sequels aren't going to get any less depressing until she starts talking about China after the 1950s, and even then...

There were so many times where I had to put down the book because I just wanted to cry. Its still good. Just between that and reading assassination of Julius Caesar at the same time was Uber depressing

I "need" to write one (technically, no one is forcing me to, but I should because I've been a less than adequate communist IRL, as much as ill make excuses in my head [nothing horrible, im not a snitch or anything]) but I've never written one before.

Is there a standardized way or format of doing this? Or is it simply dependent on the person and the severity of their lapse? Should the focus be on the lapse or should it be on steps to rectify my behavior, or both? Should I attempt to explain why I acted in certain ways (not excusing them, but just explaining why I did what I did so I and others know what went wrong)? Should I not be asking this?

I notice this with people talking about capitalism, obviously, but honestly what drove me to make this post is the attempted arguments against veganism. They're basically 95% unoriginal and fail under the most basic of scrutiny.

Take, for example, "not eating the meat won't bring the cow back." Under basically any logical scrutiny, this is a clear double standard to any other purchasing decision in capitalist society, and doesn't really make any sense. But I've seen in so many times over the years, so much so that im planning on becoming a vegan over a period of time. Not because of any arguments vegans make, but because somehow pro-meat eaters are losing a debate to a brick wall, and the conclusions I've made myself have convinced myself that I should be vegan. And I'm really starting to ask, do people just...like...ctrl+c ctrl+v arguments in their head?

I...try to be nice. But...how little respect to your own ability do you have if you do that? Not only to justify something you really don't have to, but something you obviously dont care about. I mean...sorry, it's just baffling to me.

In the words of Kim Kitsuragi from disco elysium, "I dont understand officer...please, help me understand"

Preface: I'm saying this as a first world prole, so I understand I'm not immune to this as well. I might spend $40 on an old book i want, which that $40 could be someone's monthly wage somewhere else. However, I do want to talk about this to someone who'll understand.

I like my streamers. Well, I like watching their YouTube videos anyway, and I was Watching DougDoug's charity event he held last year for the monterrey bay aquarium. There was one bit where another streamer (ludwig) gets into a bidding war with a viewer over essentially a backstage pass to the actual process of taking care of some of the sea creatures there. He spent $20000+ on it.

It wasn't necessarily just an absent minded purchase, he did make a big deal of it, but it wasn't something he was genuinely freaking out about. He essentially spent $20000 on a bit. [He was also donating to charity, but in comparison, I wouldnt spend probably over $2000 on charity over a year, if I was doing financially well].

So after this I Sat there and was just...jealous. Not of his lifestyle or his success or his business or whatever. But simply of his carefree nature about it. That spending $20000 on basically a joke was a "haha funni" moment and not a "What the fuck am I going to eat and where am I going to live" moment.

I also recently went on a Dr.Mike binge because I was sick (which honestly I feel like shit about because I already don't like him), and there was one video where he casually mentioned he has a bunch if super cars? Like what? I know those cars suck in terms of actual utility for normal people, but if I had one of those I wouldn't shut up to anyone. Those are the things I oggle at when I see them drive by, even if they're obviously rental cars.

Then I was Watching a yt shorts (I know I need to get off of those, but hey it's better than smoking so ill pick my battles) guy, who is a lawyer. And he was talking about this embarrassing bit where his elevator broke, and he needed the fire department had to come help, and when they entered all they found was a cigar dispenser [a "humidor." I didn't even know that was a thing]

I was obviously very confused. Isn't smoking outlawed in commercial buildings? How does he even regulate that who uses that? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have it in your office, if you're allowed to smoke for some reason?

Annndddd then it hit me. He has an elevator inside of his home. Like...what? I hadn't even considered the idea. Even the largest of mansions I had pictured didn't have elevators in them. And he just...has that?

None of this inspires me to want to be like these people. Ludwig I just generally don't like, and didn't really do well in trying to do anything besides streaming (as he admits, and i don't even know how much of that is just luck), Dr.Mike definitely doesn't have supercars because he's a doctor, and the last guy is a Bourgeois civil lawyer (I feel like I don't have to explain this one). All of these people got lucky in some way or another. So all I'm left with is a profound sense of jealousy.

I'm just sitting there imagining what $20000 would do for me, or how much less stressed I would be if I had the same money as all of these people. I don't need in house elevators or super cars or whatever, I just want a decent home, a lot of books, and a good computer. And these people just talk about it like they didn't hit the lottery of life, that they get to love comfortably, way more comfortably than 99% of people. And I know this is kinda moralizing, I know, I try to stay away from it. But it just builds up inside of me and overwhelms me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Suyin