[Saeko]

Maybe someone here can help me figure out where my beliefs fit in so I can maybe find some like-minded people.... Here is a very broad and loose outline of my thoughts on politics:

1) I reject any and all morality or meaning. The universe is completely amoral and without value.

2) Seeking power is the only rational way to act without values or some kind of "ultimate goal".

3) The structure of human societies is mostly beyond human control, and is deterministic though unpredictable in the short run.

4) Societies evolve in such a way as to become increasingly resistant to major changes, absent some sort of catastrophe or technological breakthrough.

5) 3 and 4 together imply that the goals of just about every political ideology which proposes a form of social organization that is radically different from that of present-day or past societies are unattainable. (This includes socialism, anarchism, communism, libertarianism, etc.)

6) One of the main goals of political philosophy is to answer the question "What kind of society is ideal?". I believe that 1-5 imply that this question is misguided. Instead, one can only ask, "For a given society, what place in that society is best?"

7) This question has a rather straightforward answer: "The top."

[Potemkin]

Get back to me when you're President of Earth, and maybe I'll start taking you seriously.

[Saeko]

Get back to me when you're President of Earth, and maybe I'll start taking you seriously.

That was completely unnecessary and disrespectful. I ask for your help, and you spit in my face?

[AFAIK]

Objectivism, although that's more individualistic.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Did you lift these points straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four? I mean this literally, as your comments about the value of life, morality and meaning, evolution of society towards one resistant to change (the point about a sudden catastrophe is explicitly mentioned in the book), the pursuit of power (albeit the Party and its members were not supposed to seek personal power but to relish power exerted as a collective whole), etc, are pretty much rewordings of the principles of Oligarchical Collectivism (for example, there's literally a whole section on how society is static, in a state of arrested development, that will continue to exist and prop up the ruling class unless some unforeseen catastrophic incident occurs, which is unlikely for the distant future).

Many of these points are blatantly sociopathic and totalitarian taken in context. I can't actually think of any political ideologies actually openly dedicated towards things like promoting the idea of the universe (and by extension, life as well) being without value or purpose and a sociopathic drive towards the mindless acquisition of power, beyond cartoon villains and stereotypically-evil organizations like Ingsoc.

[Saeko]

Objectivism, although that's more individualistic.

What, Objectivism as in the Ayn Rand nonsense?

Honestly, I don't think I find anything in that that I resonate with at all.

I guess it would help if I pointed out where I disagree with Objectivism, specifically.

First of all, Objectivism holds a belief in objective morality, which I strongly disagree with. Secondly, it supports a normative theory of politics (something I also disagree with) but it also supports laissez-faire capitalism, which I think is an impossibility.

[ThereBeDragons]

I ask for your help, and you spit in my face?

Well, what he did wasn't wrong, since morality doesn't exist, and helping you probably wouldn't increase his power, so there was no point in it.

Anyway, you're pretty much a moral nihilist, which there aren't very many of around here. But you might get along with the historical materialists despite differing in conclusions.

[Saeko]

Did you lift these points straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four? I mean this literally, as your comments about the value of life, morality and meaning, evolution of society towards one resistant to change (the point about a sudden catastrophe is explicitly mentioned in the book), the pursuit of power (albeit the Party and its members were not supposed to seek personal power but to relish power exerted as a collective whole), etc, are pretty much rewordings of the principles of Oligarchical Collectivism (for example, there's literally a whole section on how society is static, in a state of arrested development, that will continue to exist and prop up the ruling class unless some unforeseen catastrophic incident occurs, which is unlikely for the distant future).

Wow, thanks for reminding me of this. It's been 6 years since the last time I read 1984. I went back and read the section with Goldstein's book, and I swear it was like Orwell had been reading my mind. That is, until he got to the part about the beliefs of the Party members, that's where I think it gets kind of baseless and fanciful.

Hmmm... oligarchical collectivism....

Many of these points are blatantly sociopathic and totalitarian taken in context. I can't actually think of any political ideologies actually openly dedicated towards things like promoting the idea of the universe (and by extension, life as well) being without value or purpose and a sociopathic drive towards the mindless acquisition of power, beyond cartoon villains and stereotypically-evil organizations like Ingsoc.

I can see how it might come off that way. But really, I don't think that the "mindless" acquisition of power is an aberration at all, but rather normal human behavior. Without sufficient power, it is simply impossible to achieve one's goals. Indeed, it is a paradox of the human condition that the more radical one's vision of a future egalitarian society, the more power is needed to make that vision a reality. It's like the story of Tantalus. The closer you get to getting what you want, the further you are from getting it.

[Saeko]

Well, what he did wasn't wrong, since morality doesn't exist, and helping you probably wouldn't increase his power, so there was no point in it.

He may not have done anything wrong. But he did offend me. Which is far worse.

[ThereBeDragons]

He may not have done anything wrong. But he did offend me. Which is far worse.

You care, but the real question is why he should care what you have to say. And I mean this as an honest question. Given that there are no moral standards there's nothing wrong with pissing you off for any of us who are not you.

[Saeko]

You care, but the real question is why he should care what you have to say. And I mean this as an honest question. Given that there are no moral standards there's nothing wrong with pissing you off for any of us who are not you.

I believe I've said as much when I said that he did not do anything wrong. But whether or not he should care is an entirely different question. There could be instrumental reasons for why he should care. For example, perhaps he wants to have pleasant interactions with people on the forum. And if that's the case, then he should care about giving offense.

[Ornate Placebo]

Survivalism/Egoism perhaps? Something individualistic rather than societal in scope. The ideas of Max Stirner come to mind.

Stirner's philosophy is usually called "egoism". He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling," saying that the egoist has no political calling but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

[jessupjonesjnr87]

ThereBeDragons is right Saeko. You can't throw moral's out the window and not expect people to become more forthright and often offensive. I suspect one of the only positive aspects of a society with no morals would be that we could scrap all the false pleasantry bullshit, you should be embracing it not whining.

[ThereBeDragons]

No, it doesn't immediately follow that we should all be flaming assholes to each other. It means that instead of saying, "I should be polite because it's good to be polite," you say, "I should be polite because if I'm not, the conversation will become very obnoxious very fast, and I personally don't want that, so it's in my own self interest to observe some standards."

I sort of enjoy an environment where everybody is a flaming asshole but that's against PoFo rules.

[Saeko]

Survivalism/Egoism perhaps? Something individualistic rather than societal in scope.

I don't think of myself as particularly individualistic or egoistic. I know that I am just a cog in the machine, and ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I also don't place any value on the individual in and of himself, nor do I believe that people ought to do what is in their self-interest.

Stirner's philosophy is usually called "egoism". He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling," saying that the egoist has no political calling but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby."

I agree with the part about living without regard to the well-being of humanity as a whole, but unlike Stirner, I don't draw a sharp boundary between myself and everything else.

To illustrate, I care about attaining power as an end in itself, but I don't see it as something that I am uniquely entitled to (even if I would greatly prefer if no one else had any). If say, a Skynet-type machine overlord took over the world tomorrow, and it kills me in the process, then I would be just fine with that, even though I want power for myself, because it would mean that Skynet was better at doing the exact same thing I would be doing if I was it.... this is kind of hard to explain.

[Saeko]

ThereBeDragons is right Saeko. You can't throw moral's out the window and not expect people to become more forthright and often offensive. I suspect one of the only positive aspects of a society with no morals would be that we could scrap all the false pleasantry bullshit, you should be embracing it not whining.

I am not an advocate of a society without morals, even if I am a moral nihilist.

[Ornate Placebo]

nor do I believe that people ought to do what is in their self-interest.

Seeking power is the only rational way to act without values or some kind of "ultimate goal".

"For a given society, what place in that society is best?"
This question has a rather straightforward answer: "The top."

I'm confused, were people to follow the same beliefs that you have would they not be acting purely in their own self-interest? Or do you believe you are the only one who should be doing this?

EDIT: you've elaborated in the original post, but it only clarifies my second question

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No, it doesn't immediately follow that we should all be flaming assholes to each other. It means that instead of saying, "I should be polite because it's good to be polite," you say, "I should be polite because if I'm not, the conversation will become very obnoxious very fast, and I personally don't want that, so it's in my own self interest to observe some standards."

I sort of enjoy an environment where everybody is a flaming asshole but that's against PoFo rules.

Forthright and often offensive doesn't mean everybody becomes flaming assholes, it does however mean more blatant honesty towards people we have no close work of social relationship with.

[Rei Murasame]

Moral nihilism isn't a terribly unusual thing, though. For example, wikipedia describes moral nihilism as:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements, and of course moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.

There is a whole school of Confucianism which also believes this:

Xunzi (Chinese: 荀子; Wade–Giles: Hsün Tzu, ca. 312–230 BC) was a Chinese Confucian philosopher who lived during the Warring States period and contributed to one of the Hundred Schools of Thought. Xunzi believed man's inborn tendencies need to be curbed through education and ritual, counter to Mencius's view that man is innately good. He believed that ethical norms had been invented to rectify mankind.

Educated in the state of Qi, Xunzi was associated with the Confucian school, but his philosophy has a pragmatic flavour compared to Confucian optimism. Some scholars attribute it to the divisive times.[1]

Xunzi was one of the most sophisticated thinkers of his time, and was the teacher of Li Si and Han Fei Zi.

And Shinto ethics:

Summary

Specifically Shinto ethics are not based on a set of commandments or laws that tell the faithful how to behave, but on following the will of the kami. So a follower of Shinto will try to live in accordance with the way of the kami, and in such a way as to keep the relationship with the kami on a proper footing.

But it's important to remember that the kami are not perfect - Shinto texts have many examples of kami making mistakes and doing the wrong thing. This clear difference with faiths whose God is perfect is probably why Shinto ethics avoids absolute moral rules.

The overall aims of Shinto ethics are to promote harmony and purity in all spheres of life. Purity is not just spiritual purity but moral purity: having a pure and sincere heart.

No moral absolutes

Shinto has no moral absolutes and assesses the good or bad of an action or thought in the context in which it occurs: circumstances, intention, purpose, time, location, are all relevant in assessing whether an action is bad.

There are many other examples, but those are simply the first two that come to mind. Apparently I am also a 'moral nihilist'.

[ThereBeDragons]

No, you have this weird cosmic philosophy that treats awareness as a good, or something.

Nihilism is just nothing.