Comments on: You will do your part, and I mine

By: 40′s movies marathon – part 122 « Bjørn Stærk's Max 256 Blog

40′s movies marathon – part 122 « Bjørn Stærk's Max 256 Blog — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 04:46:46 +0000

[…] of the individual, and what it means to take responsibility for your choices, are close to what I try to live by. Perhaps you need to be delusional to empathize with Roark. Perhaps I am. Watched it […]

By: 40’s movies marathon – part 71 « Bjørn Stærk's Max 256 Blog

40’s movies marathon – part 71 « Bjørn Stærk's Max 256 Blog — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:52:02 +0000

[…] of it, always ready to start over again in a new direction. She’s a stoic feminist hero, (the best kind). Watched it […]

By: Adam Gurri

Adam Gurri — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:06:20 +0000

I haven't really read them, so I can't say too much on the subject.My understanding though is that they believed in personal duty; if they saw an act of injustice being committed themselves they would feel it their duty to act.I run the risk of projecting here, because I don't have much sympathy for the idea of social conscience, either. I don't think that people should be mistreated because of their race, but I also think that a lot of the people who set themselves up as motivated by "the anger to make things different" have interests of their own that often lead to injustice as well.I suppose I just don't see what is added to "conscience" when one speaks of "social conscience", other than moving from individual morality to telescopic morality about things one may have no personal experience with, and therefore are more likely to rely on simplified assumptions rather than observations on.

By: Bjørn Stærk

Bjørn Stærk — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:59:39 +0000

Adam Gurri: "I think they would have mocked anyone who believed that they, individually, were changing the world."Well, I think they would have admired some of the people who made it happen. People who stood up to authority and said no. But they would have had no sympathy for the idea of a social conscience, the idea that people should be angry about injustice that is done to other people, and should be motivated by that anger to make things different.I don't think it is a coincidence that Stoicism went out of favor in the 19th century, (or at least that is my impression), the time of the birth of modern politics.

By: Adam Gurri

Adam Gurri — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:54:17 +0000

I don't think they would have mocked that progress. I think they would have mocked anyone who believed that they, individually, were changing the world.Individually our actions only make up a very small part of the whole. The stoics were correct that all we can focus on is whether the small part that we are personally responsible for is up to standard; judging the moral right or wrong of the whole is pointless because you have no control over it.