티스토리 뷰
hamburger를 together eat할때 potato를 share하는 것은 anti-indivisualistic한 korea의 culture를 reflect하는 것인가?
The same goes for the practice of not spliting the bill but one person paying everything...
which creates opportunity for selfish indivisuals who try to exploit and pray upon others...
for example
중국 음식을 먹을 때는 탕수육을 먼저 먹고 자장면을 다음에 먹는 것이 좋다 (rather then the other way around) 왜냐하면 탕수육은 공유자원, 자장면은 개인자원이기 때문인데, 공유자원을 더 많이 획득할수록 내가 얻는 총 자원이 많아지기 때문이다. 이러한 태도로 삶을 살면 손해보지 않고 (때로는 이득을 보면서) 살 수 있다.
whose attitude might be heavily criticized for being selfish and exploitive...
On the other hand, nonexistance of such indivisuals is the proof of selflessness of each, the proof of successful creation of strong social bond, based upon self-sacrifice and mutual trust, thereby reinforcing harmony of game participants, the non-nash-equlibrium state of the game of prisoner's dilemma...
examples of which includes successful marrage, succesful maintanence of family, successful system of health insurance...
On the other hand, indivisualism prevents selfish minded people from exploiting others from the onset, by the rule of the society... which corresponds to a game different from prisoner's dilemma...
While anti-indivisualsim (or totalitarianism, or collectivism, or communitarianism, subtle difference of nuance of which I do knot really know...) corresponds to the game of prisoner's dilemma, which is suceptible from being exploited by selfish individuals...
who are mostly those in positions of wealth and power having the means of exploitation...
The east asian concept of filial duty and respecting the elders might have been created to fight against the exploitation of elders who are weaker than young people...
By the law of evolution, old people must be sefless toward young people, since it is the young people who are going to procreate and pass the genes to future generations...
and young people selfish toward old people by the same reasoning...
I myself do not care too much about my parents nor my grandparents not my great grandparents nor my great great grandparents...
who've been dead for years by the way...
while my parents and grandparents seem to care about me...
which does not coincides with my self interest as defined by myself though...
anyway, slavery is bad, although some greek philosophers were proponents of slavery who is otherwise considered
great
for his intellectual achivement based on the remnants of which the modern society is built, as some historians argue
which is argued against by more materialistic historians including myself...
it is not the philosophy nor culture which is the ultimate cause...
but the geography which shapes philosophy and culture which again shapes society...
animal slavery might be bad as well as animal activists argue...
but i want to eat meat...
i am not a hypocrite so i accept that i am a terrible selfish creature who just accept exploitation of animals for the well being of myself...
im not going to be a vegetarian... because i like mcdonalds, meat is crucial to the recipe of which...
by the way, i am not against the idea of organ havesting....
criminals are detrimantal to society, the only good use of whom might be using their organs for other good people...
Criminality is inherited so steralization of criminals seems to be a good idea...
i have to stop here because if i keep continuing i am going to expose my own ideas for how to build a good society...
which goes against the currently accepted norm...
one interesting thing is that the most radical views, such as organ harvesting, anti-natalism, acceptance of slavery, dog eating, car eating, man eating, chocolate eating, ramen eating, homocide...
are not considered as much detrimantal to society as otherwise less radical views
such as racism, sexism, 학벌주의, anti-nationalism, nazism...
which is understandable in some sense because those extreamly radical views do not at all pose a threat to society while less radical views do actually constitute a threat...
but is it really fair?
If you say
short men are losers
you can become a welder to make lots of money
lower class people are dogs and pigs
i hate korea and korean people
the people who did (censored) are uncivilized
those who died on itaewon (censored)
africa's future prospect is (censored)
women do not have the ability to (censored)
the cause of spread of aids is (censored)
your career ends.
However it is just okay to say that
all people must die
most people do not have enough intelligence to understand higher math and physics
modern science and technology is evil and must be eliminated
all people must be sterilized
which certainly are more harmful to society by the current standards of morality and social justice
is it really fair?
just to repeat
you say "korean people are uncivilized and need sterilzation" your career ends
you say "black people are uncivilized and need sterilzation" your career ends
you say "all people are uncivilized and need sterilization" your career not affected (you are considered just a weirdo who are otherwise a good person)
you say "most people attending lower universities do not have the ability to understand higher math and physics" your career ends
you say "most people do not have the ability to understand higher math and physics" you are okay
is it really fair?
maybe the society needs to put stronger obstacles against those ideas which are considered harmful, than against those radical, but otherwise powerless ideas...
but it is not the fault of the indivisual whose ideas have actual power...
it is rather the fault of many other people who share similar ideas (the reason why those ideas have power)
so the fault is not on a single indiviaul, but on the large collection of individuals...
why should a single individual suffer?
yeah i know, to raise a question is to criticise
why is it this way? why the human lauguage/human habit of thinking cant separate curiosity and criticism?
well in this case, it was certainly criticism, not curiosity
but in my life so far... occationally my curiosity was considered criticism and i had to face with angry reaction
or was it?
was it really curiosity?
actually, they were mostly criticisms...
the angry reaction is just natural...
natural in the sense that i would also react the same way as those angry people
in science (not social science) curiosity is just curiosity. i like it.
but to dig into the curiosty just requires too much mental power... which i do not posess
i lost all curiosity
i am no longer curious about the nature of things, how it works...
i am rather interested in how humans differ, which you can investigate and theorize without much mental power
whining about my lack of mental prowess is the everlasting theme of this pathetic blog
this article started with something random, but ends with something non-random