>>6931
>>6932
okay I'll re-present my points using more basic language. here are the points;
1 - The Origami Enthusiast's Dilemma
>We live in a tribe
>Our tribe demands and declares that you must contribute to the tribe's well being
>The Origami Enthusiast makes origami
>Chieftain asks him "what do your origamis do for us?"
>He replies "they're meaningful and help keep up the morale."
This is the part where your personal ultimatum as to whether things can or can't have meaning.
>The Chieftain can decide whether;
>A - The Origami Enthusiast is correct. The origamis have meaning and he's contributing to the tribe.
>B - The Origami Enthusiast, having learned origami, is lying, about origamis having meaning, in order to maintain his comfort
The issue at hand; We may never know the correct answer. Because on one hand;
>Why would he keep making origamis? Why did he learn to make origami if he didn't find it in any way meaningful?
but on the other hand;
>At the given point in time, with all his time and personal effort invested into being a better origami maker, wouldn't he have a likelihood to lie to both us, and himself, that origamis must have a meaning, because he himself cannot bear the uncomfortable truth that, his origamis, perhaps, don't mean anything at all?
and the worst part is that;
>There is no universally objective way of answering this question
This contributes to my theory that a tribe of any sorts, has an EMOTIONAL (albeit not physical) need for a "meaning-maker." When you are the chieftain warlord, when you're working a wage-job, when your contributions are, no longer under the umbrella of "survival essentials" you will be inherently asking YOURSELF the question;
>Why do we keep fighting if we already have all this much?
A group of any and all sorts will have to be able to answer this to themselves, first and foremost, in order to be able to keep existing.
The second point;
MY personal opinion on agency;
>Life is brutal
>When if and since life is brutal, some bad shit, is, inherently bound to happen
>We SHOULD do our best to prevent bad shit from happening to people
>But only when people show individual dedication towards taking action regardless of their circumstances
Why?
>A person who isn't fighting injustice for themselves, I don't trust to help me fight it when/if the situation comes to be for me
Which is what my "Caesar's Dilemma" originally stemmed from;
>The realistic observations of a tribe of any sorts goes to show that not everyone wants to do things that make them uncomfortable
>When you show that you can do them, you are inherently declaring yourself as a more powerful entity
>This automatically presumes a level of authority over you, for two reasons
>1 - You've shown your willingness and capability to do things that others don't
>This inherently makes them feel weaker next to you, even in a self-admitted group of "we are all equals here"
>Which inherently impacts how they treat and act around you
>2 - Because they did not choose to take action on things that made them uncomfortable
>When you take action to solve a problem that was affecting everyone around;
>People who were refusing to take action will criticize you for it
>Because they themselves have already justified "why inaction is the best route here" and you just made them feel very insecure in their worldview
>When/if you end up in this situation, you will argue; "I took action. They did not. They don't get to complain about my solutions, because none of them were able to/had solved the problem that I solved. No one had done anything until I did something, therefore they do not get to question my methods. If they wanted to be "more moral" then they should've taken action themselves, not just sit by and criticize me for doing things."
Why am I giving this example? Because "equality" is easier to execute in theory. "Fairness" is hard to measure, especially when you have the awareness that, all people, have an inherent bias to believe their own ideas were the right ones.
Example;
>You have a cat
>Your cat keeps shitting on the carpet
>Steals food
>Scratches people
>Breaks things
>Everyone is complaining about it
>The only solution they present is "should we just leave it out on the street? it's not learning to adapt to a household properly."
>You come up with a solution;
>"The cat is an animal that doesn't understand "human speech. It will understand pain and discomfort, unfortunately."
>You proceed to smack the cat one time, every time it breaks the rules
>You are now declared an "animal abusing monster."
>By the very same people who, in their refusal to smack the cat, were contempting on whether to leave it out on the street, which was an inherently more harmful "solution."
This is "the caesar's dilemma" presented in an ugly reality. Not every solution (realistically, no solution) will be an easy, ethically clean solution. A person in the position of being a "leader" or a "problem solver" has to learn to dictate, ignore, or shut people up. Naturally, because sometimes, to do help, you must first do some harm. You will always be judged, but never guided.