https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYSY2ohHFnQ&ab_channel=AlexanderVandenHoeven This has got to be one of my favourites, this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibVpDhW6kDQ&ab_channel=RichH

I always found Chaplin's speech there a little sentimental and maudlin. He sseems to assume people with power normally are just good people and if we would all just get along we'd all have a better world. However, it should be obvious from history, any point including today, that people DO NOT automatically just try to get along, and leaders usually go after power.

Generally humans are communal and empathic though, generally we are good people. The reason we dispute is mainly because disagreements turn into fights for survival and through co-operation we can humanise and work with those we disagree with, and educate ourselves on things we don't understand. He's speaking out against bias and selfishness in the name of collaboration and rationality. I find this message still applicable today. We won't move forward until the left *and* the right realise the opponents aren't bad people, they just have different understandings, priorities and experiences that shape their outlook differently- and although we should be sceptical and wary, generally people want what they believe is best for society

there was that talk I recall cant recall who did it

"Generally humans are communal and empathic though, generally we are good people." -- and I just generally do not believe this is true of human beings, or ever has been. I used to. I don't anymore.

But I member that they said that intelligence can be narrowed down to someones implicit capability to overcome instinct to work for the betterment of society.

Well, what they perceive as such.

Instinct tells you to react with hostility towards something different or unfamiliar

An "intelligent" person will observe from a distance, or find a way to see if its a threat

YEah I think people are naturally rotton and will naturally be rotton if they aren't taught better. They aren't naturally good. That's sort of rooted in philoso9phers like Rousseu and I just don't see humans that way anymore.

Then again, theres also pathological altruism

Sociopathy and narcissism--the modern way of saying "evil" I think--is normal in humans.

We're not naturally "good" at all. And as a people we're now so poorly educated we're lost. We have no metaphysical certainties, and a civilization that lacks those will be rolled over by one that has some.

Well that kinda fixes itself by making humans dependent on society.

Where it self regulates by getting rid of deviants, and rewarding productive behaviour.

But also, history has kinda a pattern where a society that gets too large will start reverting back to a savage society.

I think collaboration is the reason humanity got this far. It's innately within us, or innately within society, that collaboration is beneficial

How I see it is people naturally have a tribal mentality

They want the benefits for the "tribes" they associate themselves with, so

Well, its just so that its not humans are rotten, humans are rational, and rational prioritizes self survival over all others.

For some people it could just be themselves and their family

Without a shared set of values and principles, people do not cohere, and we reduce to tribalism and family--which isn't necessarily bad, unless you have no clear tribe or good family, in which case you're really lost and will search everywhere.

And if you make it rewarding to benefir the society, well, humans self regulate to continue benefiting fro societyt

Well humans find a purpose in life. Whether it be serving a force relligious or institution, serveing their society, or even their family.

I disagree Max, people can have the same values but different ideas on how to achieve fulfilment of these values

That's where most division comes from these days

Which... is why you get psycopaths. Who have no ties to anyone, making them more "selfish" than the average person

Division comes from refusal to accept differences in values

A left-wing individual and a right-wing individual both want a good economy. Left-winger thinks this is done through redistribution of wealth, right-winger thinks this is done through de-regulation and promoting free trade. This causes a division

The smallest minority is the individual

I don't see difference in values as much of an issue as different ways to reach the end goal

If you cannot protect the individual you cannot claim you stand for the minorities.

But if you cannot protect groups that individuals belong to, that they want to belong to, you aren't really protecting the individual. This is why I find both hyper-individualism and hyper-collectivism both horrifying. It's why I'm not a libertarian anymore, OR a socialist, though I get accused of both. 😛

Thats just being against extremism in general.

Or someone being a moderate. Whats there to argue?

A good collective protects the individual

That's the idea of constitutionalism and generally law- the collective enforce and act by rules that allow them to coexist as individuals

And generally benefit from one another through that.

Trade? Exchange of services? And a force to ensure it runs fair and square.

But of course, relligion has a part as well. In a time when regulation was hard as hell to enforce.

Even now, you cant see everything