The things that we choose and not choose.
I was walking past a shooting range the other day and the thought occured to me that when gun powder first came to Europe, soldiers thought it was a joke, a funny way to harm people.
And why shouldn't they have thought that? Killing is killing after all. And these little explosions could almost be considered hilarious, given the proper degree of mischief.
Of course, they would've never tried to kill someone who wasn't part of the business, a business exclusively in their hands.
Our reality today deviates in two points from that:
Armament was too costly to generally provide, yet its advantage was only such as to cancel unarmed opponents, generally speaking. Then weapons could be provided in larger numbers and after that they became exceedingly deadly: the natural course of industry.
By ingenuity and exploitation our lives are changed, and then we end up in arrangements that can stem the tide. It is a passive form of advancing, and the only way to be at peace in it is not to notice it*, because it happens too slowly. When it happens too fast, the arrangements aren't recognised as such and constant alertness feeds the desire to settle things more fundamentally.
There is no turning back, we are exploring the abyss: The top is spinning and those who don't want it to topple resort to mechanics, but the more technical a problem becomes, the fewer standards apply, until there are none. It is really very foolish: Instead of thanking the wind that has carried you so far, you declare wind immaterial for all future glides.
People think they are safe in their morality. But are they? Does it even count or is it just an ornament on top of a more pragmatic arrangement? Surely it can only count when people rely on each other's?
It would be utter folly for a man to insist on his point of view as if it was a prophet's. The prophet knows that he has to be saved by God from any mistakes that he might make, whereas a man has to be saved from his mistakes by other men. A prophet relies on God and God on him, and a man who mistakes himself for one trades his fellow men for nothing. Of course, a man might be guided in one area, but not in another, that goes without saying. It is just important to understand that the fool who apes the wise becomes no less of a fool thereby.
I am not glad that people are forgetting the basics, but it does leave me in a more important position.
* Ideally the advance would be active. Ingenuity always bears a spark of active improvement in it, which then is overshadowed by those who exploit it. It could be different, but exploitation does make sure that no applications are being overlooked (some of which better were). Again, a regime of controlled exploitation is principally possible, but there are enough cases, where abuses can hardly be kept in check. Theoretically though such a control stood on solid moral ground, considering the impact on the common good that uncontrolled exploitation of ingenuity has by sheer inertia alone, not even considering the explicitly sinister abuses.
And why shouldn't they have thought that? Killing is killing after all. And these little explosions could almost be considered hilarious, given the proper degree of mischief.
Of course, they would've never tried to kill someone who wasn't part of the business, a business exclusively in their hands.
Our reality today deviates in two points from that:
- we don't consider bloodshed the occupation of a special class of people,
- we don't use sporting weapons.
Armament was too costly to generally provide, yet its advantage was only such as to cancel unarmed opponents, generally speaking. Then weapons could be provided in larger numbers and after that they became exceedingly deadly: the natural course of industry.
By ingenuity and exploitation our lives are changed, and then we end up in arrangements that can stem the tide. It is a passive form of advancing, and the only way to be at peace in it is not to notice it*, because it happens too slowly. When it happens too fast, the arrangements aren't recognised as such and constant alertness feeds the desire to settle things more fundamentally.
There is no turning back, we are exploring the abyss: The top is spinning and those who don't want it to topple resort to mechanics, but the more technical a problem becomes, the fewer standards apply, until there are none. It is really very foolish: Instead of thanking the wind that has carried you so far, you declare wind immaterial for all future glides.
People think they are safe in their morality. But are they? Does it even count or is it just an ornament on top of a more pragmatic arrangement? Surely it can only count when people rely on each other's?
It would be utter folly for a man to insist on his point of view as if it was a prophet's. The prophet knows that he has to be saved by God from any mistakes that he might make, whereas a man has to be saved from his mistakes by other men. A prophet relies on God and God on him, and a man who mistakes himself for one trades his fellow men for nothing. Of course, a man might be guided in one area, but not in another, that goes without saying. It is just important to understand that the fool who apes the wise becomes no less of a fool thereby.
I am not glad that people are forgetting the basics, but it does leave me in a more important position.
* Ideally the advance would be active. Ingenuity always bears a spark of active improvement in it, which then is overshadowed by those who exploit it. It could be different, but exploitation does make sure that no applications are being overlooked (some of which better were). Again, a regime of controlled exploitation is principally possible, but there are enough cases, where abuses can hardly be kept in check. Theoretically though such a control stood on solid moral ground, considering the impact on the common good that uncontrolled exploitation of ingenuity has by sheer inertia alone, not even considering the explicitly sinister abuses.
Labels: 24, geschichte, gesellschaftsentwurf, gesellschaftskritik, gesetze, institutionen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
03:33
