Peter Wessel Zapffe

[chair jockey]

During the 20th century the English-speaking world labored under a draconian and highly conformist optimism, and negative perspectives were largely shunned by it. That's one reason Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe is far less known here than contemporaries such as Kierkegaard and Sartre. Anglo westerners wanted to hear from philosophers who were frightened by the potential consequences of pissing off the people in power, and who therefore somewhat disingenuously expressed views that encouraged the perpetuation of society. But increasingly these days ordinary people are losing hope for a better future, and there have now been two generations of Americans who are less well off than their parents. In that social climate thinkers such as Zapffe are being taken seriously in the western English-speaking world for the first time.

I'll let you read about Zapffe for yourselves if you want to, and just want to say that I see him as one of those rare philosophers who really did live exactly according to his philosophical views and gave no impression of having compromised the expression of those views in exchange for (as Nietzsche put it) receiving public sanction for doing philosophy. In today's world, where the prevalent perspective is that every scrap of freedom and honesty must be sacrificed in exchange for feeling like we belong, Zapffe is a particularly attractive thinker for me to read, and read about.

[Unlabeled]

Like to think the poeple behind the curtain are trying to improve things the only way that ever actually works - secretly and quietly. If you try to impose your will onto large numbers of people it's only natural for them to resist and oppose you. No one likes feeling as if they're being controlled by others. So in order to control them, you control them by giving them the impression they have choices and control themselves. As with democracy. If ultimately democracy boils down to a choice of just 2 people, is it really a choice in our leaders or not? But giving us the impression we had choice keeps us from rising up. As with religion, we have a choice in being religious or not, being a given religion or not, but if the world accept's only 1 deity existing what's the choice really about?

As "Riddick" said in one of the movies, "World's spirling around the drain." I find that overly optimistic and think instead we're well below the drain but swirling nonetheless as we descend which creates the impression there's still hope. Way we are now is how we've always been. Trying to change human nature so we get along better is futile. What's needed instead is a deliberate, conscious, and wifful change of the human organism into something more eco and interpersonally friendly. As we are, we have the inclination to resport to violence and conflict to resolve disputes. That can't work indefinitely. So we need to change the organism through genetic engineering, and yes, eugenics. We need a serious pruning to use a gardening term. Too many thorns.

[Asterion Orestes]

Make a mistake, & evidently one is not allowed to actually remove a post that's become redundant.

[Asterion Orestes]

n(k)onstant, on 02 Aug 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

During the 20th century the English-speaking world labored under a draconian and highly conformist optimism, and negative perspectives were largely shunned by it.

I was under the impression that late-Victorian (pop-cultural Darwinist) optimism died in the Great War 100 years ago.

Unlabeled

Posted Today, 01:14 PM

As we are, we have the inclination to resport to violence and conflict to resolve disputes. That can't work indefinitely. So we need to change the organism through genetic engineering, and yes, eugenics. We need a serious pruning to use a gardening term. Too many thorns.

At that rate it may take centuries to breed your proposed post-paleolithic people.

[praetorius]

What's needed instead is a deliberate, conscious, and wifful change of the human organism into something more eco and interpersonally friendly. As we are, we have the inclination to resport to violence and conflict to resolve disputes. That can't work indefinitely. So we need to change the organism through genetic engineering, and yes, eugenics. We need a serious pruning to use a gardening term. Too many thorns.

Historical attempts at "improving the race" through eugenics have generally indicated that those most enthusiastic about selecting the best genes (naturally, ones very much like their own) also tend to be the last people you'd want representing humanity. Who gets to decide who's the "thorns" are? Who gets to be the new Master Race this time, since the German plans in the '40's didn't pan out? I've gotta say, this idea has way too much really nasty historical baggage to seem compelling.