To elitists, social Darwinists:

[urchin444]

To elitists, social Darwinists:

What is the Christian humility of elitists? I believe that humility is not a gesture for people, but for all things. Because people should be equal to each other, whether it is Socrates' dialogue with the mentally handicapped, or the president and the beggar, we should treat each other as equal objects. But as we have seen, objective phenomena are not. Shouldn't the object of humility be truth and unknown? Elitist/Social Darwinian humility is to humble others because they consider themselves to be the embodiment of some kind of authority/truth.

I see a lot of elitism/social Darwinism in the forums, and many of them come out with a lot of auras: xx doctors, xx bachelor's degrees, all kinds of dizzying social titles, and so on. (I'm not attacking highly educated people, mind you, but referring to deliberate display, which is important) They admire the qualifications of those who hold academic discourse, even forum administrators, and even flattery them at all costs of distorting reality. Thus despising and rejecting one: bipolar disorder, or simple and kind fools, they will use superb skills to implicitly express their contempt. Evading the essence of the problem and even stealing concepts to complete the attack.

When the problem arises, they will cover their ears in the way of silent treatment, and if the person who is being silent treatment at this time becomes emotional, it will fall into their logical trap———— you will immediately put on the hat of rudeness, spreading negative emotions, etc.

 

[urchin444]

I believe that peace and love are not utopian fantasies, they are part of action, and cold violence may be more aggressive than blurted out swear words

 

[Pandora]

Interesting. I am not seeing it that way but really appreciate being shown a different viewpoint.

In terms of complimenting people who are actual experts in the field and have completed huge amounts of education I don't see a problem with that because many of them sacrificed a lot of time and money to make it happen (Many of them are making an attempt to pay off huge debs that helped to make it happen) and they have no obligation to be here and have absolutely no obligation to share anything from their knowledge base. The fact that they choose to do so in a rather generous and ongoing manner is deserving of a lot of compliments in my opinion. In my opinion that is not social Darwinism but just respect.

There are many Nexians dealing with mental health issues and as far as I can tell they are being treated with respect, love and concern. It is the culture, system and current treatment modalities that are lacking respect.

As far as simple and kind fools go they are welcome here to the extent that they are willing to learn and grow. I do see that but I also see foolish arrogant people and trolls and they need to be called out. Some of them are downright dangerous.

As far as your last paragraph goes all I can say is I'm probably safe in speaking for the whole community in writing we are all doing the absolute best we can living in a tough world but trying to be better human beings.

 

[urchin444]

Interesting. I am not seeing it that way but really appreciate being shown a different viewpoint.

In terms of complimenting people who are actual experts in the field and have completed huge amounts of education I don't see a problem with that because many of them sacrificed a lot of time and money to make it happen (Many of them are making an attempt to pay off huge debs that helped to make it happen) and they have no obligation to be here and have absolutely no obligation to share anything from their knowledge base. The fact that they choose to do so in a rather generous and ongoing manner is deserving of a lot of compliments in my opinion. In my opinion that is not social Darwinism but just respect.

There are many Nexians dealing with mental health issues and as far as I can tell they are being treated with respect, love and concern. It is the culture, system and current treatment modalities that are lacking respect.

As far as simple and kind fools go they are welcome here to the extent that they are willing to learn and grow. I do see that but I also see foolish arrogant people and trolls and they need to be called out. Some of them are downright dangerous.

As far as your last paragraph goes all I can say is I'm probably safe in speaking for the whole community in writing we are all doing the absolute best we can living in a tough world but trying to be better human beings.

Thank you Pandora for your reply, I specifically pointed out this point in the article (please note that I am not attacking highly educated people, but deliberately displaying, which is important) The act of sharing knowledge for free is undoubtedly noble, my point is not to share knowledge, or not to share knowledge effectively, just to let these titles form a sign of authority on them.

As for the attack on social Darwinism, I think it may be appropriate to use a vague smell as a rhetoric.

Your reply is completely fine, but you may not have figured out the motivation and deep reasons for my statement, I am not an unreasonable person, but the problem is, I must say it in this way, but obviously the person concerned may not take it seriously,I'm sure the person in question knows everything in most cases I am definitely a reasonable person and humbly accept my mistakes.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Hmmmm...

Are we sure that we may not be too particular and nitpicky here? People express what they are proud of. People that continued education tend to be more educated that people who didn't, and as a result, others are more inclined to listen to them.

Now, I'm not saying that because someone continued education and is more educated is smarter, more reasonable, more logical, right more often, or anything of the sort. But it may help to think about it statistically: who is likely to have better information for me to use? Likelihood goes to those who at least sound the most educated. And because people who continued more education are more educated, they often sound as such, and people listen to them.

I believe that humility is not a gesture for people, but for all things. Because people should be equal to each other, whether it is Socrates' dialogue with the mentally handicapped, or the president and the beggar, we should treat each other as equal objects.

I see an issue here, and it's somewhat an issue the world over in my mind. You went to a specific belief you have and then extended that to how all people should behave. Who is anyone to dictate (and override another's freewill) what another should or should not do? That's a slippery slope in my opinion.

I would prefer more people to be more humble, but I'm not going to dictate how they progress on the trajectory of behaviors of their own lives. It's their prerogative.

I see a lot of elitism/social Darwinism in the forums, and many of them come out with a lot of auras: xx doctors, xx bachelor's degrees, all kinds of dizzying social titles, and so on. (I'm not attacking highly educated people, mind you, but referring to deliberate display, which is important) They admire the qualifications of those who hold academic discourse, even forum administrators, and even flattery them at all costs of distorting reality. Thus despising and rejecting one: bipolar disorder, or simple and kind fools, they will use superb skills to implicitly express their contempt. Evading the essence of the problem and even stealing concepts to complete the attack.

So, I have a bachelor's but I find no need to display it. There is another member that is an actual doctor and he has a badge representing this. What does this do? It tells people that he may not be talking out of his backside whenever he decides to be very technical with regard to medicine. Why is this important? A few weeks ago, I had to nip a member that used what appeared to be the appropriate chemistry jargon to spout nonsense (that found to be so by another chemical expert) and try to overturn already established data. There are a great many people in this world that talk the talk without walking the walk. People see something that has been "earned" (some degrees aren't that hard to get depending on the school, however, becoming a chemical expert here is pretty serious business), and for many, that happens to be telling. What it's telling of isn't always accurate or true, but for many, seems to be so often enough, so they default to that.

All the same, I am also not cool with someone hanging such achievements over another's head in any way. We are all born into different circumstances and have different experiences that direct the path of our lives. That said, not everyone has the influence, opportunity, finances, etc. to be able to pursue higher education. Much of life is the luck of the draw. So they only get so much credit based on such contexts.

One love

 

[urchin444]

Hmmmm...

Are we sure that we may not be too particular and nitpicky here? People express what they are proud of. People that continued education tend to be more educated that people who didn't, and as a result, others are more inclined to listen to them.

Now, I'm not saying that because someone continued education and is more educated is smarter, more reasonable, more logical, right more often, or anything of the sort. But it may help to think about it statistically: who is likely to have better information for me to use? Likelihood goes to those who at least sound the most educated. And because people who continued more education are more educated, they often sound as such, and people listen to them.

I believe that humility is not a gesture for people, but for all things. Because people should be equal to each other, whether it is Socrates' dialogue with the mentally handicapped, or the president and the beggar, we should treat each other as equal objects.

I see an issue here, and it's somewhat an issue the world over in my mind. You went to a specific belief you have and then extended that to how all people should behave. Who is anyone to dictate (and override another's freewill) what another should or should not do? That's a slippery slope in my opinion.

I would prefer more people to be more humble, but I'm not going to dictate how they progress on the trajectory of behaviors of their own lives. It's their prerogative.

I see a lot of elitism/social Darwinism in the forums, and many of them come out with a lot of auras: xx doctors, xx bachelor's degrees, all kinds of dizzying social titles, and so on. (I'm not attacking highly educated people, mind you, but referring to deliberate display, which is important) They admire the qualifications of those who hold academic discourse, even forum administrators, and even flattery them at all costs of distorting reality. Thus despising and rejecting one: bipolar disorder, or simple and kind fools, they will use superb skills to implicitly express their contempt. Evading the essence of the problem and even stealing concepts to complete the attack.

So, I have a bachelor's but I find no need to display it. There is another member that is an actual doctor and he has a badge representing this. What does this do? It tells people that he may not be talking out of his backside whenever he decides to be very technical with regard to medicine. Why is this important? A few weeks ago, I had to nip a member that used what appeared to be the appropriate chemistry jargon to spout nonsense (that found to be so by another chemical expert) and try to overturn already established data. There are a great many people in this world that talk the talk without walking the walk. People see something that has been "earned" (some degrees aren't that hard to get depending on the school, however, becoming a chemical expert here is pretty serious business), and for many, that happens to be telling. What it's telling of isn't always accurate or true, but for many, seems to be so often enough, so they default to that.

All the same, I am also not cool with someone hanging such achievements over another's head in any way. We are all born into different circumstances and have different experiences that direct the path of our lives. That said, not everyone has the influence, opportunity, finances, etc. to be able to pursue higher education. Much of life is the luck of the draw. So they only get so much credit based on such contexts.

One love

hi dear Voidmatrix:

There is absolutely no problem with what you said, and I very much agree.

I apologize for the misunderstanding of the slippery slope fallacy that my remarks bred; What I call elitist/social Darwinist is limited to the premise that they all do so. What I'm referring to is just an example, and the person didn't reply to me positively, I wrote this post in the hope that he could send me a private message so that the contradictory information could be resolved.

The implication is just a wake-up call, I'm sorry I didn't fully note them and led to a slippery slope fallacy in understanding, this post is entirely a response to someone's attack and doesn't apply to most scenarios.

I have great respect for those who are truly committed to serious academic research, who have done this with a long period of unremitting and boring persistence, and I completely admire that 100%.

 

[urchin444]

In addition, this incident may have revealed that I am an unconfident and inferior person, and I do not deny this. But the related problem is that I have to make it clear that if someone refutes me, you have to be logically consistent and adequately point out my problem. The use of metaphysical or a priori concepts to bypass logical validation or even borrow its incomprehensible properties into weapons against people is not the metaphysical intention.

(To be clear, I think there are indeed many problems that go beyond the scope of logic, beyond the scope of what can be described technically, and I fully respect and even awe that point; But if someone dares to form a gesture in front of me, claiming or metaphorically claiming or metaphorically having mysterious legitimacy, I will pull him off the shrine and ask what happened.)

 

[dragonrider]

Elitism can mean different things. That can be mutually exclusive. I have two forms of elitism in mind right now, but there are probably other forms as well.

One is that of meritocracy. This is probably the closest to any kind of darwinism, but i find the idea of meritocracy and social darwinism in that sense actually very beneficial to all people, because i believe that we all benefit if talent is given the opportunity to shine. Even if you or me personally would not be among the most talented of people.

The other is that of privilige based on socio-economic background.

Ofcourse void is right though, that often, socio economic background enables talents to grow, or hinders it.

But at the core, these are two totally opposite worldviews. If you believe in meritocracy, then you have to believe in creating equal opportunities for everyone, and you have to reject any kind of privilige based on background, color, gender, etc.
If you believe in "our kind of people is better than others", then you have to reject equal opportunities, and you have to embrace said privileges.

Ofcourse meritocracy can also take a dark turn, when people start to believe in "might makes right". But i think that "might makes right" can be expected to be a much more dominant way of thinking among class-elitists than among the people who believe in meritocracy.
Because at least meritocracy seems to imply there are such things as universal rights and duties, while class-elitism implies that being in a position of privilege or power, is enough of a justification of that position in itself. Wich is much more consistent with that might makes right kind of logic.

But i think there may be another kind of elitism, wich seems to be what you're referring to, wich is that of pseudo-merit:
Merely pretending that ones arguments have merit, by creating a smokescreen of misdirection or disinformation. By using a lot of technical jargon to hide the emptiness of statements, referring to studies or articles that either have no actual bearing on what is being discussed, or have no real merit themselves, appeals to authority, etc.

You can see a lot of that in academia these days. I think that some universities, even some of the prestigious ones, allow for some pseudo science to exist within their institutions, simply to make money.

The people within those departments, both students and teachers, will heavily rely on misdirection, sophistry and misinformation, simply to hide the fact that they're full of shit.

Unfortunately, in this live you have to pick your battles. Wich means that most people will not bother arguing with these fraudsters, because it is such an utter waste of time having to read through a lot of bullshit, only to debunk something that you already know is bullshit.
(Like for instance the rightwing denial of anthropocentric global warming, or the current leftwing race or gender doctrines)

It's like debating flat-earthers. There's always some fake study they want you to read, and ofcourse you're not going to, because you've got a live, so they can claim to win the argument simply by your refusal.

 

[urchin444]

Elitism can mean different things. That can be mutually exclusive. I have two forms of elitism in mind right now, but there are probably other forms as well.

One is that of meritocracy. This is probably the closest to any kind of darwinism, but i find the idea of meritocracy and social darwinism in that sense actually very beneficial to all people, because i believe that we all benefit if talent is given the opportunity to shine. Even if you or me personally would not be among the most talented of people.

The other is that of privilige based on socio-economic background.

Ofcourse void is right though, that often, socio economic background enables talents to grow, or hinders it.

But at the core, these are two totally opposite worldviews. If you believe in meritocracy, then you have to believe in creating equal opportunities for everyone, and you have to reject any kind of privilige based on background, color, gender, etc.
If you believe in "our kind of people is better than others", then you have to reject equal opportunities, and you have to embrace said privileges.

Ofcourse meritocracy can also take a dark turn, when people start to believe in "might makes right". But i think that "might makes right" can be expected to be a much more dominant way of thinking among class-elitists than among the people who believe in meritocracy.
Because at least meritocracy seems to imply there are such things as universal rights and duties, while class-elitism implies that being in a position of privilege or power, is enough of a justification of that position in itself. Wich is much more consistent with that might makes right kind of logic.

But i think there may be another kind of elitism, wich seems to be what you're referring to, wich is that of pseudo-merit:
Merely pretending that ones arguments have merit, by creating a smokescreen of misdirection or disinformation. By using a lot of technical jargon to hide the emptiness of statements, referring to studies or articles that either have no actual bearing on what is being discussed, or have no real merit themselves, appeals to authority, etc.

You can see a lot of that in academia these days. I think that some universities, even some of the prestigious ones, allow for some pseudo science to exist within their institutions, simply to make money.

The people within those departments, both students and teachers, will heavily rely on misdirection, sophistry and misinformation, simply to hide the fact that they're full of shit.

Unfortunately, in this live you have to pick your battles. Wich means that most people will not bother arguing with these fraudsters, because it is such an utter waste of time having to read through a lot of bullshit, only to debunk something that you already know is bullshit.
(Like for instance the rightwing denial of anthropocentric global warming, or the current leftwing race or gender doctrines)

It's like debating flat-earthers. There's always some fake study they want you to read, and ofcourse you're not going to, because you've got a live, so they can claim to win the argument simply by your refusal.

hi dragonrider：

Elitism refers to a theory that understands and explains the structure and development of politics and society from the perspective of realism, and believes that a small number of social elites with knowledge, wealth and status should make political decisions and dominate the trend of society. Its synonym is oligarchy, its opposite is populism.

Social Darwinism, also known as social evolution, or simply social, refers to a series of social theories that apply the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest from Darwinian evolution to human society. This idea was first seen in the theory of socio-cultural evolution proposed by the British philosopher and writer Herbert Spencer. The popularity of Social Darwinism lasted from the 19th century until the end of World War II, and it has been argued that modern sociobiology can also be classified as a school of Social Darwinism.

In short, Social Darwinism forces a mixture of concepts from two very different fields: Darwinian evolution and sociological categories in the biological sense; Social Darwinism in the general sense refers to the survival of the fittest, the survival of the strong and the elimination of the weak; This does not reconcile to explain the example of win-win cooperation in human society; In fact, social Darwinism is a very, very cruel ideology, a complete jungle world, even several times more cruel than the jungle, (Darwinism in the biological sense is only a hypothesis), if the weak cannot gain sympathy, can only be taken for granted as "food" and a sacrifice of society, it goes without saying, what kind of world is this? I hope you can experience it.

Elitism, on the other hand, is very obvious, a complete "Illuminati" world, and I believe that this concept should be clear to everyone. From this point of view, the survival of the fittest of elitism and social Darwinism is similar here, and I don't understand what you are talking about with completely opposite theories.

The political manifestation of elitism is aristocracy or royal power or dictatorship, and I don't understand where the superiority of the system lies. They have a monopoly on the interpretation of legality, academic authority, religion, power authority, media, violent machine owners from any point of view... Elitism cannot be checked by the masses, because a very small number of elites monopolize everything. And these very few are basically the embodiment of truth ...

I'm talking about elitism, social Darwinism in general, and I believe that its expression is relatively accurate in the context of what I have not said much; Of course, it is extreme to label people in this community, but this is a "wake-up call" reminder, not a means and purpose of attack.

Of course, I agree with some of your observations of academia, but like the left-right dispute and the horizon theory, I believe that they are relatively easy to explain ———— science and philosophy using some relative truths.

 

[dragonrider]

In behavioural biology, darwinism is not seen as this ruthless ideology at all. Primatologists and behavioural biologists like frans de waal or jane goodall tend to hold the view that in social structures, "fitness" can also mean kindness, trustworthyness, generosity, etc. Highly social traits.

This can be seen, not just on an individual level, but on a group level as well. So groups of very social individuals will generally be better of than groups of anti-social individuals, meaning that in social animals, social and coöperative behaviour will benefit the group, wich then subsequently will strengthen the evolutionary pressure towards social behaviour among the individual animals it consists of.

I would say that this is a form of social darwinism as well, because it focusses on the evolution of social behaviour in individuals, as well as the evolution of social structures and the interaction between these two phenomena.

It is different from spencers views, but much more in line with the views of peter kropotkin, who i think also classifies as a social darwinist.

Spencers views are generally being rejected as pseudo-science these days, but kropotkins ideas have had a significant influence on primatologists and ethologists like de waal or goodall, but also political scientists like tobert axelrod.

I also think, like i said before, elitism can mean different things. Because the word "elites" is not just being used to describe aristocracy. It is also being used to describe people who excel at something: cultural elites, elite scientists, elite soldiers, elite footballplayers..

The SAS or the navy seals are elitist groups of people, because not just anybody can join them. The same is true for the berliner philharmoniker. Or the main team of FC barcelona.

But this elitism rules out aristocracy, because barcelona would never have won any championship if they would only accept people from wealthy backgrounds.

 

[urchin444]

In behavioural biology, darwinism is not seen as this ruthless ideology at all. Primatologists and behavioural biologists like frans de waal or jane goodall tend to hold the view that in social structures, "fitness" can also mean kindness, trustworthyness, generosity, etc. Highly social traits.

This can be seen, not just on an individual level, but on a group level as well. So groups of very social individuals will generally be better of than groups of anti-social individuals, meaning that in social animals, social and coöperative behaviour will benefit the group, wich then subsequently will strengthen the evolutionary pressure towards social behaviour among the individual animals it consists of.

I would say that this is a form of social darwinism as well, because it focusses on the evolution of social behaviour in individuals, as well as the evolution of social structures and the interaction between these two phenomena.

It is different from spencers views, but much more in line with the views of peter kropotkin, who i think also classifies as a social darwinist.

Spencers views are generally being rejected as pseudo-science these days, but kropotkins ideas have had a significant influence on primatologists and ethologists like de waal or goodall, but also political scientists like tobert axelrod.

I also think, like i said before, elitism can mean different things. Because the word "elites" is not just being used to describe aristocracy. It is also being used to describe people who excel at something: cultural elites, elite scientists, elite soldiers, elite footballplayers..

The SAS or the navy seals are elitist groups of people, because not just anybody can join them. The same is true for the berliner philharmoniker. Or the main team of FC barcelona.

But this elitism rules out aristocracy, because barcelona would never have won any championship if they would only accept people from wealthy backgrounds.

hi Dragoon, first of all, my article does not mention Darwinism in the biological sense, my article discusses social Darwinism; Because of language or other problems, I think there was a misunderstanding.

But it cannot be denied that Darwinism in biology is not such a cruel state, it only describes the changes in physiological characteristics and behavior patterns of organisms in order to adapt to changes in nature; Darwinism in biology is still a hypothesis, and there are many problems that it cannot explain well, such as the Cambrian explosion, transitional species in biological evolution, and so on...

Social Darwinism is a concept introduced into sociology from the field of biology, and according to you, if Spencer's social Darwinism is called pseudoscience, then it verifies the unreliability of Social Darwinism itself, but I myself am against Social Darwinism.

Peter Kropotkin was a communist, and communism is now widely regarded in academic circles as an unattainable political utopia, a political tool for a revolutionary coup d'état and a hoax to enslave the underclass.

Interestingly, you mentioned the aristocracy in elitism, and the society led by the nobility has appeared in history, that is, feudalism (responsible, responsible, aristocratic spirit), and even commoners do not have to perform military service, the nobles are responsible for guarding, and commoners are responsible for production. Such feudalism appeared in Rome, Celtic, Germanic, Merovingian dynasties, etc.

There is also a well-known elitism, that is, the fascist militarism led by Nazi Germany, Italy, and the Japanese empire, which caused World War II, and they not only advocate elitism, ultra-nationalism, and social Darwinism.

Navy SEALs are teams that serve an elite group, and they cannot technically be called absolute elites; I agree with the Barcelona squad who really train hard and even come into the squad from the slums, and I admire that. But you seem to confuse elitism and society with positive feedback on individual effort and talent.

 

[urchin444]

I am a humanistic believer, which means that everything should be human-oriented. In this crazy world, maybe you are a rich intellectual, maybe you are a poor artist, maybe you are a despicable financial speculator, maybe you are just an ordinary ordinary person who behaves in all aspects, maybe you are a disabled beggar. So what? It's just a huge game to achieve different results, we are all created equal, the earth belongs to everyone, respect and compassion for everyone.

I was out of breath, I could no longer look directly at the tragedy unfolding in this world. At this time, someone said in the hypocritical tone of the stereotypical white man: "You have to know that everyone is not easy, uh, I am very tired from the sun today, but I survived, we just have to blindfold, we only admit that beautiful sunny things, any dark things do not actually exist, oh, the world is so beautiful!" it's okay......”

Surrounded by mountains of persecuted corpses, they died of silence and foolishness

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Peter Kropotkin was a communist

You're misrepresenting Kropotkin here. He was above all else an anarchist who advocated for true decentralised communal ownership of the means of production, not the fraud of state capitalism that is still passed off as having been 'failed communism' to this day. I'd highly recommend reading up on anarchism a little more.

 

[urchin444]

Peter Kropotkin was a communist

You're misrepresenting Kropotkin here. He was above all else an anarchist who advocated for true decentralised communal ownership of the means of production, not the fraud of state capitalism that is still passed off as having been 'failed communism' to this day. I'd highly recommend reading up on anarchism a little more.

Peter Kropotkin: Biography, Quotes & Anarchism | StudySmarter

Peter Kropotkin: ✓ Biography ✓ Quotes ✓ Conquest of Bread ✓ Quotes ✓ Lenin ✓ Anarchism ✓ StudySmarter Original

www.studysmarter.co.uk

"Anarcho-communism is a branch of anarchism that promotes the idea that society should be organised in small local communities with common ownership of wealth and." private property.”

 

[urchin444]

Peter Kropotkin was a communist

You're misrepresenting Kropotkin here. He was above all else an anarchist who advocated for true decentralised communal ownership of the means of production, not the fraud of state capitalism that is still passed off as having been 'failed communism' to this day. I'd highly recommend reading up on anarchism a little more.

Public ownership itself has communist overtones, I think you did not argue against me, you do not have to fall into emotional expressions, I do not know you, otherwise you are suspected of besieging me, instead of arguing for the truth.

If not for the sake of truth debate, then what is the difference between a hooligan who fights in a public toilet?

 

[urchin444]

Peter Kropotkin was a communist

You're misrepresenting Kropotkin here. He was above all else an anarchist who advocated for true decentralised communal ownership of the means of production, not the fraud of state capitalism that is still passed off as having been 'failed communism' to this day. I'd highly recommend reading up on anarchism a little more.

I have never discussed capitalism or state capitalism, and I am not a fan of them. I personally lean towards neoliberalism, humanism; But I don't think I need to argue with others about political positions, this problem is basically unsolvable, everyone has his understanding.

In fact, these concepts are our fictional ideas, and we live in huge lies. Knowledge for me is not to put "pie" 3.1415926 ... Recite hundreds or thousands, the human brain is not a mobile hard drive; In fact, I think that knowledge is always fresh, changing perspectives, various ways of thinking, tools, and the function of the human brain are always unknown to me.

We are not enemies, I am not trying to mess around in the forums, I just have some questions that need to be known in polite, rational, or gentle ways beyond reason. I admire the selfless knowledge and love of those in the forum, who must be my brothers.

So far, I have been a little disappointed, what I have seen and felt is the coldness and aggression behind these words. I wonder why

 

[urchin444]

Peter Kropotkin was a communist

You're misrepresenting Kropotkin here. He was above all else an anarchist who advocated for true decentralised communal ownership of the means of production, not the fraud of state capitalism that is still passed off as having been 'failed communism' to this day. I'd highly recommend reading up on anarchism a little more.

I read your articles, you are an expert in chemistry, you write well

 

[dragonrider]

Luckily, communism is no longer a very popular ideology in most parts of the world, though i believe that in the united states it has now gained some popularity again among some fringe groups of woke students who mainly want to burn everything down because they believe that to somehow be justice, and who at the same time like to call everyone who disagrees with them "historically illiterate". There is some irony in that, though it is a rather sad irony.

Kropotkins views are still relevant however, because of that darwinist trait. You could say that they have been replaced, or refined by robert axelrods' ideas on the evolution of social norms. The book "The evotion of cooperation" is a milestone in thinking about norms and social behaviour, and a very influential work in the fields of behavioural biology, philosophy, economy, ecology and social sciences.

My point is that it was inspired heavily by a line of thinking that was also a branch of social darwinism. Spencers views where just a gross misinterpretation of darwins theory.

It is worth mentioning that darwin was inspired by ideas about the evolution of civilizations, so you could say that the idea of evolution came full circle in more than one way.

Now it is true that "social darwinism" is almost by default, automatically being associated with the views of spencer, and therefore a term that should probably be avoided.
Wikipedia even hardly mentions thinkers like kropotkin in their article on social darwinism.

But "elitism" is a much more widely defined term. Wikipedia or the cambridge dictionary both leave open on wich human traits elitism can be applied, so it can both refer to aristocracy as well as meritocracy. Aristocrats don't by definition have merits.

 

[dragonrider]

In hindsight i now think that my comments here where not entirely appropriate. I should have emphasized more that what is known today as "social darwinism", is not only a pseudo-science, but also very much at odds with actual darwinism.

My motivation here is that i believe that, though spencers ideas where wrong in many ways, the idea of evolution itself is not, and consequently, that the idea that not just our bodies, but also our social instincts and behaviours have been shaped by millions of years of evolution, is correct.

There is a common belief that frans de waal refers to as the "veneer theory": the idea that civilization is just a thin veneer and underneath that thin layer, we are all brutal, anti-social and violent animals.

This is something that i very deeply disagree with. I belief that the position that human civilization on the one hand, and human nature on the other, are completely at odds with eachother is not only fundamentally flawed, but also very problematic from an ethical point of view. Both the view that human nature is evil and thus has to be opressed at all costs, as the view that civilization is an evil corruption of our true and inherently good nature, are a consequence of that position, and both these views can only lead to suffering when acted upon.

It often seems as if many people today harbour a deep distrust towards the science of biology these days. Maybe even modern science alltogether.
I find that regrettable.

Though ofcourse there has been and still is a lot of bad science, pseudo-science and misinterpretation of scientific facts.