Social Solipsism

Epistemological Solipsism is one of the sillier philosophical positions taken by philosophers in the long history of philosophy.  In its less silly form it amounts to the claim that, although we may have good cause to think we ourselves exist, we have no good reason to believe in the existence of other people or things.

I've always felt that there's something offensive about the argument that we can't really know whether the people and things we interact with without question every instant we live are real.  The contention is utterly futile, and one of the several philosophical positions which constitute claimed differences which make no difference.

But if taken seriously as a belief which impacts how we live, it's most offensive as it diminishes the worth and significance of others.  Why trouble ourselves about what can't be shown to be real?

I doubt anyone accepts Epistemological Solipsism in any meaningful sense.  But I think there are many who are what I'll call Social Solipsists for purposes of this post, and that their number is growing.

I'll define "Social Solipsism" as the belief that there is no good reason to care about other people.  Social Solipsists [shall we call them "the SS"? Not quite yet, perhaps] don't think other people cannot be shown to exist.  They think that they exist, but believe that they don't matter.  Social Solipsists aren't concerned by them, they don't sympathize with them, they don't think about them.  Social Solipsists acknowledge other people exist, but treat them as though they don't.

A Selective Social Solipsist thinks that certain people are significant or useful for one reason or another, for selfish reasons, and so care about them.  But the great majority of their fellow human beings are of no importance.

Social Solipsism has become rampant in our politics and in the media, social media included.  Other people--those who aren't useful, or don't think or act like we do, who don't figure in our plans, whose existence doesn't fit our interest or is contrary to it--don't concern us. They may be disregarded, and if necessary exiled or deported or  removed from the scene in some way.

Removed like Palestinians from Gaza, for example; or removed from employment in the federal goverment. Social Solipsists aren't concerned with the impact that their conduct has on others, as those others though they exist might as well not exist. Social Solipsists need not respect others, or consider their desires, for the same reason.

It's a new way of defining our self-regard and selfishness, and adds a philosophical tint to our sociopathy. And it seems to fit those who think empathy is a weakness well, if I don't say so myself.

Flip-Floppin' Away

 

The woefull state of the politics of our great nation distracts me from musing here on the latest efforts of the Missionary Media to enlighten us (something I long to do, those efforts being so dull, smug, and offensive). So bear with me, as someone said recently, as I marvel at the bewildering, inconsistent actions of our scatter-brained leader and the regime he's put in place to assure we're passengers in what may be called "Mr. Trump's Wild Ride."

Federal employees are fired or laid off without thought, for no reason but to satisfy the urge to do so.  Then, when reality intrudes on the termination spree and the disciples of Musk understand that in their enthusiasm to do his bidding they've fired useful and necessary people, efforts are made to rehire them.  And now that even those with rudimentary intelligence understand that thinking should precede action, we're told by one such person that while many will be fired because that is in some vaguely defined sense necessary, "good people" should be spared the axe.

We're now told that instead of a chainsaw, a scalpel is to be used.  Mirabile dictu!

Tariffs are threatened and imposed, and then relaxed or rescinded. Claims are made departments will be dissolved; then it's denied that they were made.  

Unprincipled people act haphazardly. They react haphazardly as well. They have certain desires they wish to gratify, and when acts taken fail to gratify those desires they reverse them.  They flip-flop.  They may do so again.  

In this case one of the desires of those in the regime is to satisfy the needs and wishes of rich, powerful people.  That's the function of government in a plutocracy.  So, cherished tariffs are made and unmade.

That function is complicated here due to the fact the regime leader is easily swayed by those who praise him and seek to satisfy his need for admiration. Also, he is notoriously unable or unwilling to be honest.  Tariffs imposed therefore are waived or postponed if the rich and powerful find them inconvenient, or if his ego is appropriately stroked.  Maybe he'll change his mind again.

But the haphazard, unpredictable conduct of the unpricipled creates uncertainty, and uncertainty is something plutocrats dislike and fear.  So perhaps his reckless conduct will be reigned in to protect the plutocrats. But where will that leave the rest of us?

The Pride of the Patsy

 

Someone who is easily manipulated, cheated, duped--a patsy, in other words--is generally known, even famous, for this weakness. Those who use the patsy are aware of it of course but others become aware as the extent of the manipulation is clear, and the patsy is made a subject of ridicule.

The patsy suspects he/she is perceived to be a pushover.  This often is the reason why the patsy is so easily fooled.  The patsy resents being seen to be a patsy, and so is eager to achieve something significant which shows him/her to be someone to contend with; an intelligent, savvy mover and shaker.  So Fredo Corleone in The Godfather II, for example, betrayed his brother because he thought he would thereby accomplish something important for himself which would make him a player in the game.  That's what he was promised by those who used him.

Perhaps the greatest patsy in modern history was Neville Chamberlain, who famously sought to appease Hitler by agreeing on behalf of Great Britain that Germany could acquire most of Czechoslovakia in return for Hitler's promise that Germany would seek no further territory.  Chamberlain believed he had obtained "peace in our time" and told everyone he had done so.  We know what happened next.

Because the patsy suspects he/she is thought to be a fool, the patsy is eager for and demands respect. The greater the patsy is perceived as a dupe, the more angrily and often and publicly respect is demanded.

I think what we saw take place recently at the White House is an example of this trait of the patsy.  He knows he's been considered a patsy for quite some time, and for good reason. Thus he (together with his anxious lackey) demanded he be shown respect by the repetition of expressions of gratitude although those expressions have been made many times already.  Significantly, however, he insisted that he himself be thanked, or thanks be given to him. Thanks given in the past were inadequate.

Since he's done little more than repeat Russian contentions and cut Ukraine out of negotiations, the fact the thanks in the excessive form demanded weren't forthcoming shouldn't be surprising.  It may be the case, as some have claimed, that no amount of groveling would have sufficed in any case, as what took place was simply the patsy doing his best to be a patsy.

We may find that Chamberlain will be replaced and another take his place as the greatest.

Brat Politics

 

I've been asking myself what word best characterizes the attitude of those making up the current regime and its acolytes. Clearly, they're cruel and their deeds for the most part reckless, corrupt and destructive.  But what word best describes the spirit behind their caprices?

I've decided that word is " bratty."  A "brat" (when not a bratwurst) is a spoiled, rude, annoying child or immature person.  A brat feels entitled and expects to get all that he/she desires.

Think of brats you've known and those portrayed in media.  The insufferable, cruel, whiney Joffrey Baretheon in Game of Thrones; the bullying, privileged crook Biff from Back to the Future; the contemptable, rude, malicious toady and sneak Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver; the despicable, spoiled, shrill Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter movies; the exceedingly pampered and endlessly demanding Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Then consider the rogues gallery assembled by the one to be known here as Aging Orange to pursue the agenda formulated by the bastardized "conservatives" who authored Project 2025, which AO repeatedly claimed not to know. It's difficult to conceive of them as anything but brats.

Their self-regard and self-righteousness is remarkable. They're not only entirely convinced that what they say and do and desire to do is all that is right and good, they expect that everyone else should know that's the case and resent it when they don't.  Indeed, they assail the sanity, morality and patriotism of those who doubt them to any extent.

Though they act like annoying, blustering know-it-alls who expect their whims to be treated as commands to be followed without question, they lack the wit to recognize their bratty nature. In fact they lack wit altogether. If they possessed a sense of humor their conduct might be tolerable in some respects. But their humor is vulgar and crude and never rises above mere sarcasm.

As brats, they're childish in thought and action. They view the world and others as spoiled children would-- without empathy or subtlety.  They're essentially selfish.  They employ threats to get their way and throw tantrums when they're not treated as they think they should be.

I'm unable to think of any other instance in our sad history when a nation was ruled by brats.  Past brats were in most cases mere figureheads, manipulated by powers behind the throne.  But now the brats are in charge.

Abandon all Thought Ye Who Enter Here

 

If there was something along the lines of a gate or portal by which people entered the service of the regime now infesting the government of our Glorious Union, I imagine that the words appearing in the title to this post would be emblazoned on it.  With the substitution of a single word, they of course are inscribed on the Gate into Hell in Dante's Inferno.

Some might say the word substituted, "hope," should be returned to the wording and made part of an inscription to be placed over an entrance into the USA itself.

We know that the titular head of the regime believes personal loyalty to him to be a condition of participation in it.  There is nothing less conducive to intelligence and critical thinking. What it requires is unthinking obedience to commands.  Questioning them, or even considering their appropriateness is disloyal.  Allegiance is owed to a single person, rightness is determined using a single standard.

As a mechanism to discourage thinking, inquiry and the application of intelligence to problem solving, the requirement of unquestioned loyalty is more effective than dogmatism.  Dogmatism is the absolute acceptance and arrogant application of particular ideas and positions. Thought may come into play in deciding which ideas one accepts.  Loyalty, however, is an emotional attachment, sometimes combined with hero-worship.

To an extent, dogmatism has played a part in most administrations.  In the past, the two political parties have not been radically different in certain matters, but have disagreed on questions of social policy.  The social policies favored by the party in power have dictated executive actions in many instances, which has meant that those actions have been undertaken mostly because dogmatism demanded it.

But in the current case, dogmatism is combined with personal loyalty of a kind typically granted to the leader of a cult.  The result is the implementation of policies consistent with both directed to ends espoused by the leader without regard to consequences.  Why consider consequences of sweeping actions when they are self-evidently appropriate because they're taken in pursuit of the desires of the leader?  No other considerations are significant.

So, for example, in the haste to terminate government employees in accordance with cult and dogma, mistakes are made.  Essential personnel are fired.  Then efforts are made to rehire them.

This unthinking compliance with the demands of cult and dogma is especially dangerous given the efforts made to extend presidential authority.

This is what our system has brought about, apparently. It may be corrupt, or we may be corrupted.