Like some sort of organic, unconscious entity?

None of those. — BitconnectCarlos

Then who’s applying the power, who has the monopoly and who’s doing the protecting?

the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. — BitconnectCarlos

By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?

What would motivate such a denial? — Moliere

The search for the core problem.

But that would still be a systemic problem, and still a problem that would disproportionatiely affect black people, so it could reasonably be called institutional racism. — Echarmion

I don’t agree with that leap from the systemic problem of cops becoming hardened and disconnected from those they are meant to serve to institutional racism. Institutional racism suggests a practised, conscious act by those who employ the cops. I don’t doubt there are people who dislike blacks for all sorts of reasons, but cops behaving badly does not equate to institutionalised racism to me. But what it does suggest is a lack of proper management. All across the world we saw overreach by cops in regard to social distancing and the Covid virus. It varied from state to state or city to city. The police seem to have forgotten how to talk to people, what their job is and just who it is they serve and protect. Maybe the force attracts a particular type, but even if that was the case that person should be managed better. I wouldn’t want the job of a cop. If you’ve worked out there on the street you’ll know what I mean. It takes a special kind of person to handle that day after day. So maybe, like teachers, we need to make this a special kind of job, led and managed by unique individuals. If poverty is behind the tension among black communities, something that is not going away over night, then it’s the police force that can change and respond to the situation sooner than economic change.

the achievements in the same way as is expected of middle/high class people do, which is where the majority resides. — EpicTyrant

Achievement, or success, is a powerful American ideal. I think it’s more idealised in the US than any other nation. It’s a problem that it’s expected of everyone and it’s how many are judged. That in itself being a majority opinion is not the most healthy of situations for people who don’t take part in it.

Because I don't believe the drive to high achievement is specific to white people at all — StreetlightX

I’d agree with that. There is actually a very powerful black upper class who have success and influence. So that drive for success is not specifically white. Though it does appear to be that way and it makes one wonder why and how.

Thank you.

Yes I’m aware of that video. I don’t think that’s a convincing argument. Nor do I understand how a black could become a President in a racist society or Colin Powell serve in the government or Condoleezza Rice serve as Secretary of State. There’s obviously a clash of cultures between blacks and whites but I don’t think “systemic racism” is a good enough term to address the problem.

I think it’s possible that the police force is not racist but that there are cops who dislike their job and the people they deal with until they reach the point where they have a hatred towards these people. It’s possible the job has damaged these people. Somewhere along the line they must have exposed what was happening but nothing was done about it. Those cops don’t have any others skills so they’re not likely to resign and look for another job, policing is the only thing they know. It seems to me there have been many examples of cops crossing the divide in a positive way. Obviously bad cops are more newsworthy and get more coverage. But what I’ve seen over the last week or so makes wonder about the idea that the cops are “racist”.

Perhaps the most freeing element for any race is to be able to be perfectly average or utterly flawed and not have those flaws and failings reflective of their 'race'. To not have to bear responsibility for an entire race just because one is black or any other skin color. — StreetlightX

But this is a problem but it’s one that can be applied to whites as well. Whites are accused by blacks and whites of being “privileged” and being “privileged white males”. This is obviously not true of all white people or all white males but it’s a feeling applied by many to whites. So there appears to be a problem here that’s a human failing.

I think a mental prison is very formidable. You could even consider social mores as a mental prison. To break out of a mental prison you need outside help. Where and how do you begin to find it? If the mental prison is strong enough you’ll end up viewing the world with suspicion, Hiow do you overcome that, who do you trust?

Edit: isn’t it possible the mental prison creates the physical prison?

It seems to me that we have a predilection towards pattern, order and proportion, and it seems more prevalent in males, the rate of autism in males being one indication (from memory). Traditional composition of painting has been around a long time, the triangular arrangement of elements for example, and the arrangement of elements regarding balance and space. One of the radical changes in art was to smash this idea of balance and create tension in the work by breaking these rules. Everyone is comfortable with these ideas about balance and proportion even though it’s unconscious. People are satisfied by this subtle arrangement in images, be in paintings or photos. The fact that artists break the rules to create new tensions or draw attention to things suggests an understanding and acceptance of what might be regarded as objective patterns. Otherwise why smash the idea of proportion and balance with something in mind?

Maybe this proves nothing and someone will deconstruct what I’ve said, but I find it interesting all the same.

Edit: “ The college I went to after high school was Catholic and they hated basing math on logic.“ What was their position?

There you go.

Your too smart for me.

That’s cheap baiting Baden.

This is the politics and current affairs section. We don't expect the same kind of rigorous arguments that are expected in the philosophy topics. — Michael

Why’s that?

This is not a philosophy forum. What a joke. You’ve all fallen into the same hole.

I have no idea what you really mean.

What’s the obvious you’re referring to?

A lot of us watching the protests and riots in the US will feel that we’ve seen this before. But there’s an interesting element added to the mix these days.

“Coincidently this week, the Wall Street Journal’s peek at Facebook’s decision making over the past several years spotlighted a 2018 internal report acknowledging that “[o]ur algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness. … If left unchecked [it will show users] more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/31/a_week_when_social_media_showed_its_true_face_143332.html

To recognise perfection wouldn't we need to be perfect ourselves?

If most humans live and die with the religion that they are born with from their family or society that they didn't choose, — Abdulrahman Adel

It could be argued that most humans don’t live with a God that they didn’t chose, but that they chose every day whenever they think about God.

So you were just playing dumb. — I like sushi

I don’t see any evidence of playing dumb. But maybe it’s possible that I don’t see it. So point it out to me.

one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites. — Pantagruel

I’m not familiar with it but I’ll look into it. Thanks.

Are you seriously asking me how the ‘social contract theory’ is relevant to this topic? — I like sushi

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy.

I asked why you viewed extreme altruism with concern and then what you meant by extreme altruism. Then in reply you sent me a link to Wikipedia. So I still have no real idea of what you think or where you’re coming from.

So, which theory on the social contract can we look at the Michigan riots from. They’re not purely black, they are in response to something specific but address some greater underlying problem, they destroy their own environment, they’re probably justified, they’ll spark further riots, they’ll probably lose, and they’ll provoke an aggressive response from authorities.

Isn’t this my whole OP in action, something real instead of speculation on a philosophy forum?

Okay. Now address this OP with what you know about the Michigan riots. how is your link relevant to that? Don’t give me theories from Wikipedia. How do we live today?

Edit: from an earlier post; How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?

Why do you think? Take a stab at it as a given and maybe you’ll find something. — I like sushi

you can’t really expect me to know what you think. Maybe instead of “why” I should have asked what you mean by “extreme altruism”.

I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity) — Pantagruel

Definitions seems to be quite broad and most likely defined on the basis of ideology. Weber called it “ a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence“. Wikipedia mentions that “ There is no undisputed definition of a state“.

Where do you think the difference might lie? It seems to me that all of family/clan/tribes have some form of governance, whether it be priests, chiefs or elders. Not to mention the cultural aspects of all communities.

Whatever the definition, can the state exist, can it be called a state, if it doesn’t include the people and their, possibly unconscious, influential affect as a mass?

If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority.

Rights being G-d-given seems to be just a way of saying they apply to every person regardless of their wealth, race, gender, and to carry with it the connotation that rights are part of the will of the people and liable to go away once they are no longer valued by them. — kudos

:up:

I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views — I like sushi

Why?

Just to help elucidate where I’m coming from;

A state is a polity under a system of governance.

Polities do not necessarily need to be governments. A corporation, for instance, is capable of marshalling resources, has a governance structure, legal rights and exclusive jurisdiction over internal decision making. An ethnic community within a country or subnational entity may be a polity if they have sufficient organization and cohesive interests that can be furthered by such organization. Wikipedia

State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence. — I like sushi

I don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do equate to communities. A state is a community of humans.

‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!) — I like sushi

What are we then? One of either two things: a solitary individual or a shared experience of being human. If you reduce a life down to its most basic experience, a “right here, right now” moment, then what it comes down to is the moment you interact with another person and how you treat them, at that very moment.

What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves — I like sushi

This may or may not be true. The best knowledge of others cannot be reached in isolation. One can only achieve an understanding of others by listening, by paying attention. That requires a quietening of your ego.

Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? — I like sushi

I’m not presuming to know what is better for others by suggesting that I act in what may contribute the most good for the most people. I’m taking part in the world as an act. The obvious example of that is the situation of taking a vaccine to help eradicate a disease. I have my doubts about vaccines, I’m not sure about taking them as an individual, what it does to my system, and possibly more importantly the growing demands of health authorities and vaccines becoming mandatory. That seems to be an assault against the sovereignty of my body. That’s my perception of myself as an individual. But why? Am I so important? So I consider the overall benefits to the community by accepting the vaccine.

rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ — I like sushi

Really, who cares about your journey. How does that really help others? How does it really contribute good to others? It’s action that makes the world a better place. The most good for the most people seems a perfectly rational way to live a life. What else would you chose?

I’m not suggesting that “it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’. But why would you live a life in conflict with people? Are others that bad that you must protect yourself from them. And if they are that bad then why, because their sense of individuality clashes with yours?

I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. — I like sushi

This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it?

There was more to it than the bold part ...

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death).
— I like sushi — I like sushi

Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. It’s more about what is the best way for us to be to give the most benefits to the most people? Your question related to the individual and their growth. “What we are” is the problem in that it presupposes the priority of the individual. My use of the word happiness probably should have been replaced with “healthy”, as in a “good citizen” in the sense that he/she contributes to the state instead of destabilising it.

And your post, intentionally or not, does bring the focus back to the individual, “We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery”. Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? If you think that your “exploration and discovery” is the way to do that then I’d like to hear in what way.

My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most?

Being able to differentiate ourselves in a landscape (physical/social/mental) defines what an ‘individual’ is. — I like sushi

That’s certainly true in defining us as conscious creatures. But after that, what? How many of us make a difference with our individuality, how many of us are unique, because isn’t that what’s meant by individuality?

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. — I like sushi

I’m not sure about that. If I can agree to receive a vaccine imposed by the government, or accept restrictions of movement, all for the sake of the community or state, then is it not unreasonable to reconsider my ideas about how the state should be structured if it’s good for the state and consequently achieves the most good for the most people, and should I question my actual “value” as an individual, instead of an idea that satisfies my ego.

Another point worthy of consideration is the psychological role of the nation compared to that of religion. This is something that has been of significance for some time. What are your thoughts on those in line with the human ‘individual’? — I like sushi

Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state.

How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?

You're saying the "real" state is the population? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. It’s the mass created, like a beehive.

One of my questions is can we, could we, sublimate our individual desires in service of the greater good. Assuming that was the result? There are people who do this without coercion.

I’m not even considering this in terms of a socialist state, or any centralised, authoritarian state, when we consider the opposition of the individual to the state. I’m thinking of it within a reasonably balanced political and social environment.

Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles. If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing; see my reference to Copernicus or even the drive towards civil rights for blacks in America, or the vote for women

Edit: the individual must be free from the coercion of the state. But why and to what degree?

I have no thesis. I’ve asked a question that I have no answer to so I hoped to explore it with others here.
However, in answer to your question regarding “necessity and co-existence”, it’s relevant because they need each other, that they are not really separate entities. It’s necessary that they co-exist for the survival of both.

You pose one of those eternal questions about individuals and their relationship to the powers that governs them (the state). — Neuron420

I don’t think I do believe it’s the state that governs. It seems to me to be a sort of symbiotic relationship. It’s government that imposes power from outside or above.

Because we are all individuals and have different viewpoints of where the line lays between individuals and the state. — Neuron420

Is this true or just a concept we have of ourselves? Just how many contributing individual are there out there making a difference because if their “individuality”? And in the end what does that word actually mean?