My argument in defense of slavery, inspired by Nietzsche

[Foinikas]

Notion we need to challenge

1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights

People are not born equal. Majority of people ( including me ) don't have what it takes to be a great philosopher, a great artist, a great mathematician, great scientist or anyone in general who contributes to the cultural enrichment of your civilization. Instead of enforcing a system where everyone sees himself as equal to other people , the state should keep the natural hierarchy in place to maintain the highest standard of art, philosophy, science in society and let everyone who is capable prove his worth. Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. The elite class of society should enjoy greater rights and be allowed to get around the law as the culture is in greater need of them. A nation is defined and distinguished from others by its culture. So the value of an artist is considerably more than that of a soldier or any commoner for that matter

What we need to advocate

2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary

Before AI takes blue collar jobs away from the people, we need a class of people who should not concern themselves with politics, science and philosophy. They should be trained to operate as mindless robotic cogs in the big industrial wheel. They need to be enslaved so the elite can have all the time to advance the frontier of knowledge and art. Once the AI revolution is successful, half of the world population will be rendered useless, so it's important to let them know that they don't deserve the same equal rights as the elite who are running the world. The downtrodden members of society should be grateful that they have not been euthanized forcibly for being a complete waste of space

The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society and the common people should not be able to dictate the direction of art to the artist. The commoners should be indoctrinated or slowly pushed to acquaint themselves with the elite taste until it becomes the fabric of the society as a whole. In this way, it's the role of the great artist to lift a nation to great cultural heights

Would you like to be a slave?

 

[WotTen]

The common man will never recognize the work of genius. It takes a class of geniuses to recognize work of great merit.

This is a circular argument. Great people are great because other great people say so.

The mistakes of great man are still great, as they give direction to the future. You should see the big picture. Science is making progress and we are getting closer to understanding our world. The incredible practicality of science in industry is a testament to its increasing accuracy in understanding the world of phenomena

On the contrary, worship of great men often hinders progress. Ptolemy and Aristotle ruled the day for 3000 years, even though many people during those centuries dared to disagree and paid with their lives.

Scientific progress depends on independent thought which rejects the conventional wisdom. Progress is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Your thesis would encourage evolution but stifle revolution.

 

[Eskander]

This is another nonsense. Why should a day laborer who can barely feed his family give money to some 'great artist' so he can lounge around all day and maybe produce so-called art?

Peasants should not have a say and their concerns don't matter. Ancient cultures didn't feel any shame in owning slaves. The Abbasids, the Andalusian people had slaves. The autocrats should use the common is the service of a great civilization. Sympathy breeds weakness.

I believe in user-pays. Rich people who want to support artists should pay high prices to see their art.

No. Rich people don't have the capacity to appreciate art. The direction/production of art should be solely owned by the artists. An anti-egalitarian society is neccessary to produce a great civilization.

Would you like to be a slave?

If l don't have what it takes to be a great man ( of science, arts, philosophy ) , l should be enslaved.

Most of you here should be slaves, unquestionably. That's why you hate my idea. You think too highly of yourself.

 

[WotTen]

Most of you here should be slaves, unquestionably. That's why you hate my idea. You think too highly of yourself.

I reject your idea because it is not well thought out. It is not workable in the real world for the same reason communism and socialism don't work: they all go against human nature. It also shows a deep ignorance of biology.

An undeniable aspect of human nature is human selfishness, greed and corruption. That is why leaders in communist/socialist societies always live a far better life than the proletariat. Your idea suffers from the same problem: the men (and it is usually men) who declare themselves great will never allow their own families to become slaves.

What happens when a 'great man wants to marry a not-so-great woman? What if a 'great' couple ends up having not-so-great children? Will a 'great' man send his kids to become slaves and pick up a 'great' child born to a slave?

The caste societies you mentioned were based on birth. The 'great' ensured their own offspring would remain elite, no matter what, and the untouchables would remain untouchable, no matter what.

 

[Eskander]

This is a circular argument. Great people are great because other great people say so.

It's not a circular argument. Every society has its class of great individuals who nurture and foresee a new generation of great men. It's a cycle, so it's supposed to happen in a circular manner. Your counter argument holds no value here since you can't offer an alternative

On the contrary, worship of great men often hinders progress. Ptolemy and Aristotle ruled the day for 3000 years, even though many people during those centuries dared to disagree and paid with their lives.

It's not their fault that no one was capable in 3000 years of recognizing their mistakes. Progress in of itself doesn't mean anything, what matters is you have a meaning giving art form/civilizational outlook in life. Take the example of Religion, which is actually a great comprehensive art form. Islam for eg is reasonably static in its outlook on life, but it still provides meaning in life to 1.6 billion Muslims.

Scientific progress depends on independent thought which rejects the conventional wisdom. Progress is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Your thesis would encourage evolution but stifle revolution.

It's technically impossible to break free of the herd in science. Progress in science often takes a linear form and at times, it takes a genius to see the "next" step. Evolution and revolution are only means to subvert old ideas/values/forms of life etc.

You are focusing on science exclusively and you have failed to locate my idea in the grand scheme of things

 

[WotTen]

It's not a circular argument. Every society has its class of great individuals who nurture and foresee a new generation of great men. It's a cycle, so it's supposed to happen in a circular manner. Your counter argument holds no value here since you can't offer an alternative

No, in. my very first post i asked you to give an objective definition of 'great'. You have still failed to do so, even after so many posts. All you could come up with is 'great people are great because other great people say so'.

You may not see the circularity in your definition, but I am sure others can.

It's not their fault that no one was capable in 3000 years of recognizing their mistakes.

But I already wrote that other people challenged them and paid with their lives or livelihood. Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus.

Who was the great one? Aristotle or Galileo? According to you, they both cannot be great because great people recognize other great people.

It's technically impossible to break free of the herd in science. Progress in science often takes a linear form and at times, it takes a genius to see the "next" step. Evolution and revolution are only means to subvert old ideas/values/forms of life etc.

But your system would stifle dissent and revolution. It would institutionalize the herd mentality and conformity by force of law.

You are focusing on science exclusively and you have failed to locate my idea in the grand scheme of things

I am still waiting for you to define greatness objectively before we can even debate you idea.

 

[Eskander]

I reject your idea because it is not well thought out. It is not workable in the real world for the same reason communism and socialism don't work: they all go against human nature. It also shows a deep ignorance of biology.

My system is a reflection of the natural hierarchy you see in nature. The strong dominates the weak in my worldview. How is this incompatible with biology.

An undeniable aspect of human nature is human selfishness, greed and corruption. That is why leaders in communist/socialist societies always live a far better life than the proletariat. Your idea suffers from the same problem: the men (and it is usually men) who declare themselves great will never allow their own families to become slaves.

Selfishness, greed are not terrible sentiments in of themselves. I don't see why it's wrong for aristocracy to maintain the status quo. It takes a great amount of base desires to rise to power, and the same base instincts keep you in power. However, once corruption gets in the way of producing great individuals, the elite collapse or deteriorate rapidly. The Mughal empire collapsed for the same reason. It didn't
produce great individuals anymore.

What happens when a 'great man wants to marry a not-so-great woman? What if a 'great' couple ends up having not-so-great children? Will a 'great' man send his kids to become slaves and pick up a 'great' child born to a slave?

I don't see what you are insinuating here. Once the aristocracy stops producing great man, it will collapse on its own weight. Take the French revolution. The aristocracy collapsed and a great man emerged from the common people, Napoleon.

The caste societies you mentioned were based on birth. The 'great' ensured their own offspring would remain elite, no matter what, and the untouchables would remain untouchable, no matter what.

If the "untouchables" don't have what it takes to overthrow the powerful, they should be enslaved, quite rightly. Weakness should not be the subject of any sympathy. If someone is stupid, weak and infirm, feed him to the wolves.

 

[Eskander]

No, in. my very first post i asked you to give an objective definition of 'great'. You have still failed to do so, even after so many posts. All you could come up with is 'great people are great because other great people say so'.

I don't think using dictionary definition will contribute to the conversation. Wittgenstein, a great philosopher thought of meaning as use. Words have meaning according to their use in a discourse/language game. The meaning of "greatness" is clear to anyone who has read Nietzsche. A word has many shades to it and "greatness" doesn't have any essence to it. There's family resemblance between the different uses of the word "great". You should read Wittgenstein to understand my point here

You may not see the circularity in your definition, but I am sure others can.

You can't reduce the meaning of any word to its base form and not find some form of circularity. Since you have a foundation/ essence based understanding of meaning. You are forced to accept a foundation for the word to get meaning, it's a circular exercise.

But I already wrote that other people challenged them and paid with their lives or livelihood. Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus.

Who was the great one? Aristotle or Galileo? According to you, they both cannot be great because great people recognize other great people.

They are all great individuals who shaped the world with new values/ideals/forms of life. They both are great despite their disagreements

But your system would stifle dissent and revolution. It would institutionalize the herd mentality and conformity by force of law.

Majority of people follow the herd instinct, so it won't surprise me. If you observe closely, my elite class of nobleman are capable of producing great individuals, since they are not powerful despots only , they themselves understand what it takes to achieve greatness in art, science, philosophy, culture

I am still waiting for you to define greatness objectively before we can even debate you idea.

Read Wittgenstein to get my point

 

[LakeHawk180]

Notion we need to challenge

1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights

People are not born equal. Majority of people ( including me ) don't have what it takes to be a great philosopher, a great artist, a great mathematician, great scientist or anyone in general who contributes to the cultural enrichment of your civilization. Instead of enforcing a system where everyone sees himself as equal to other people , the state should keep the natural hierarchy in place to maintain the highest standard of art, philosophy, science in society and let everyone who is capable prove his worth. Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. The elite class of society should enjoy greater rights and be allowed to get around the law as the culture is in greater need of them. A nation is defined and distinguished from others by its culture. So the value of an artist is considerably more than that of a soldier or any commoner for that matter

What we need to advocate

2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary

Before AI takes blue collar jobs away from the people, we need a class of people who should not concern themselves with politics, science and philosophy. They should be trained to operate as mindless robotic cogs in the big industrial wheel. They need to be enslaved so the elite can have all the time to advance the frontier of knowledge and art. Once the AI revolution is successful, half of the world population will be rendered useless, so it's important to let them know that they don't deserve the same equal rights as the elite who are running the world. The downtrodden members of society should be grateful that they have not been euthanized forcibly for being a complete waste of space

The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society and the common people should not be able to dictate the direction of art to the artist. The commoners should be indoctrinated or slowly pushed to acquaint themselves with the elite taste until it becomes the fabric of the society as a whole. In this way, it's the role of the great artist to lift a nation to great cultural heights

Oh boy

 

[WotTen]

There's family resemblance between the different uses of the word "great". You should read Wittgenstein to understand my point here

You are digging yourself deeper in the hole. You have gone from

great people are great because other great people say so

to

greatness is defined by great people as the quality they possess

my elite class of nobleman are capable of producing great individuals, since they are not powerful despots only , they themselves understand what it takes to achieve greatness in art, science, philosophy, culture

Un huh. So you are depending on a class of ubermensch to lead humanity to a golden age of 'greatness'. There are no ubermensch on planet Earth; there's just us humans.

 

[RescueRanger]

Dear OP:

 

[jamahir]

That is why leaders in communist/socialist societies always live a far better life than the proletariat.

Incorrect.

I reject your idea because it is not well thought out. It is not workable in the real world for the same reason communism and socialism don't work: they all go against human nature. It also shows a deep ignorance of biology.

Communism and Socialism are natural to humans. They desire empathy and equality of humans in political, social and socio-economic spheres. Below is the simply described meaning of Communism from Wikipedia :

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a far-left philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common or social ownership of all property, including the means of production, and can involve the absence of social classes, money and the state.

Communism is the opposite of the selfishness-driven, dog-eat-dog, anti-democracy system originating in Britain probably and now applied by governments all over the Western bloc including in India and Pakistan. Communism is natural to humans, at least to empathetic, evolution and harmony seeking humans, unless you say that the selfish, profit-seeking, war-mongering and tyrant humans should be allowed to hold perpetual control of all of humanity.

 

[WotTen]

Incorrect.

Please name ONE country where the elite live the same lifestyle as the ordinary peasant or laborer.

Communism is natural to humans, at least to empathetic, evolution and harmony seeking humans, unless you say that the selfish, profit-seeking, war-mongering and tyrant humans should be allowed to hold perpetual control of all of humanity.

You are confusing empathy with equality. Most people want everyone to have basic necessities where no one goes hungry or dies from illness. This is not the same as everyone gets the same rewards regardless of effort. Someone who works hard deserves more in return that someone who sits around all day.

 

[karachidude86]

Notion we need to challenge

1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights

People are not born equal. Majority of people ( including me ) don't have what it takes to be a great philosopher, a great artist, a great mathematician, great scientist or anyone in general who contributes to the cultural enrichment of your civilization. Instead of enforcing a system where everyone sees himself as equal to other people , the state should keep the natural hierarchy in place to maintain the highest standard of art, philosophy, science in society and let everyone who is capable prove his worth. Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. The elite class of society should enjoy greater rights and be allowed to get around the law as the culture is in greater need of them. A nation is defined and distinguished from others by its culture. So the value of an artist is considerably more than that of a soldier or any commoner for that matter

What we need to advocate

2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary

Before AI takes blue collar jobs away from the people, we need a class of people who should not concern themselves with politics, science and philosophy. They should be trained to operate as mindless robotic cogs in the big industrial wheel. They need to be enslaved so the elite can have all the time to advance the frontier of knowledge and art. Once the AI revolution is successful, half of the world population will be rendered useless, so it's important to let them know that they don't deserve the same equal rights as the elite who are running the world. The downtrodden members of society should be grateful that they have not been euthanized forcibly for being a complete waste of space

The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society and the common people should not be able to dictate the direction of art to the artist. The commoners should be indoctrinated or slowly pushed to acquaint themselves with the elite taste until it becomes the fabric of the society as a whole. In this way, it's the role of the great artist to lift a nation to great cultural heights

That is not how ISLAM works, you do know your on a Pakistani forum boy? We have literally the perfect system if implemented so shoooo go lick your white masters shoes.

 

[Eskander]

That is not how ISLAM works, you do know your on a Pakistani forum boy? We have literally the perfect system if implemented so shoooo go lick your white masters shoes.

Jarir b. Abdullah reported it from the Holy Prophet (pbuh) : "When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted"

Sahih Muslim 70
In-book reference	: Book 1, Hadith 136

"وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَـٰفِظُونَ"

Those who guard their chastity

"إِلَّا عَلَىٰٓ أَزْوَٰجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـٰنُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ"

except with their wives or those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, for then they are free from blame.

(23: 5-6)