oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual’s wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn’t that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There’s plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
I’m just trying to rephrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” as I’m starting to suspect that idiom is either too… abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don’t want both mutually inclusive things, you’re in for a bad time. Wanting what isn’t the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
So you agree, then, that your sentence “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” is logically flawed?
I really don’t see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don’t want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn’t start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don’t want to be shaken out of the trance where they’re constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual’s wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn’t that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.
It’s not actually, it’s exactly as simple as I made it. Enough people wanted to violently coerce. Not enough people wanted to resist.
The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.
A cow, for example, may want to avoid its trip to the abattoir, but conditions have been created in which the cow’s wants are unattainable.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There’s plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
Uh… Yeah we are.
I thought we were aliens
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
I’m just trying to rephrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” as I’m starting to suspect that idiom is either too… abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don’t want both mutually inclusive things, you’re in for a bad time. Wanting what isn’t the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
So you agree, then, that your sentence “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” is logically flawed?
I really don’t see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don’t want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn’t start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don’t want to be shaken out of the trance where they’re constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.