1. Do you believe there is value in the self? (Yes/No)
2. Do you believe there is sanctity in nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion as a means of reinforcing the self and giving a feeling of permanence, or are these arbitrary and could be replaced by other means of reinforcing the self and giving permanence? (Yes/No)
Explanation:
It seems to me that a lot of politics boils down to arguing about what is the most rewarding/tolerable way of living. Both the left and right offer solutions to this question, and the solutions they give are dependent on how you would answer these two questions.
The right wing believe there is value in "in groups" and "out groups"—in other words, divisions in society such as nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion, etc. etc. However, left-leaning people, on the other hand, do not see value in these concepts. They see them as oppressive, as it flies in the face of egalitarianism (the belief that all people are the same/equal). Leftists seek the dissolution of all those listed concepts.
So, before we can answer the question of whether there is value in these things, we must inspect what they do. And it is my opinion that these things exist to serve the self. The self/ego can be strengthened through concepts like these listed, as it gives a feeling of permanence and identity—which is how we arrive at our first question: is there value in this identity or ego?
If the ego is detrimental to us, then we should be seeking to destroy all forms of identity: nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion, etc. etc. However, if there is value in the self, then we should be strengthening the self. However, now this leads us to our second question—
If there is, in fact, value in the self, and so we choose to build a society that will strengthen the self, is there anything about these traditional forms of identity that I've listed that is exceptional? Or can the identity be strengthened to the same degree with the pursuit of individual self-improvement?
If you haven't pieced it together yet: if you answered "yes" to Q1 and "yes" to Q2, it would basically make you a fascist or something similar; and if you said "no" to either Q1 or Q2, you'd either be a communist or some type of libertarian/liberal.
I know this is a pretty simplistic type of model and i can think of some flaws like all the lgbt shit is kinda an exception to the whole the left want to dissolve separation because a lot of queers make sexual identity's , but hey, it's a start. Any critiques are welcome, and thanks for reading my autism
oh and of course if you'd like to give your opinion on how you'd answer the two questions that would be great, id love to pick your high iq brains
2. Do you believe there is sanctity in nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion as a means of reinforcing the self and giving a feeling of permanence, or are these arbitrary and could be replaced by other means of reinforcing the self and giving permanence? (Yes/No)
Explanation:
It seems to me that a lot of politics boils down to arguing about what is the most rewarding/tolerable way of living. Both the left and right offer solutions to this question, and the solutions they give are dependent on how you would answer these two questions.
The right wing believe there is value in "in groups" and "out groups"—in other words, divisions in society such as nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion, etc. etc. However, left-leaning people, on the other hand, do not see value in these concepts. They see them as oppressive, as it flies in the face of egalitarianism (the belief that all people are the same/equal). Leftists seek the dissolution of all those listed concepts.
So, before we can answer the question of whether there is value in these things, we must inspect what they do. And it is my opinion that these things exist to serve the self. The self/ego can be strengthened through concepts like these listed, as it gives a feeling of permanence and identity—which is how we arrive at our first question: is there value in this identity or ego?
If the ego is detrimental to us, then we should be seeking to destroy all forms of identity: nation, gender, family, race, ethnicity, and religion, etc. etc. However, if there is value in the self, then we should be strengthening the self. However, now this leads us to our second question—
If there is, in fact, value in the self, and so we choose to build a society that will strengthen the self, is there anything about these traditional forms of identity that I've listed that is exceptional? Or can the identity be strengthened to the same degree with the pursuit of individual self-improvement?
If you haven't pieced it together yet: if you answered "yes" to Q1 and "yes" to Q2, it would basically make you a fascist or something similar; and if you said "no" to either Q1 or Q2, you'd either be a communist or some type of libertarian/liberal.
I know this is a pretty simplistic type of model and i can think of some flaws like all the lgbt shit is kinda an exception to the whole the left want to dissolve separation because a lot of queers make sexual identity's , but hey, it's a start. Any critiques are welcome, and thanks for reading my autism
oh and of course if you'd like to give your opinion on how you'd answer the two questions that would be great, id love to pick your high iq brains
Last edited:
