hckrnws

A problem with mythologizing past defeat is it can lead to sacrificing the present and future. Some people have the need to live in a grand mythic narrative. Others just want decent lives for themselves and their children with security and a future.

To quote the article: «The defeated of the world theorize what they endure. In truth, the only critical thinking possible today is thinking from the standpoint of the defeated. This standpoint is not one of passivity, nor of victimhood. On the contrary, it asks: How can one think from within brokenness, from within the ruins, and still produce meaning, and even possibility?»

And further: “I do not want to exalt the past at the expense of my present and of my future.”

Baggage, whether it is from our life or lives before us will always be just that - baggage. If we don't choose how much to carry with us then someone else will happily choose for us.

To me, facing defeat with an open face means to not remain defeated forever.

Some of our best entrepreneurs and scientists lost many times before they won.

I hate theocracies. I hate that Iranian-made drones are killing people in Ukraine. Still, the tragedy and suffering of the Iranian people makes me deeply sad

I'm going to ask a potentially offensive question, but an earnest one.

I often see people make these kinds of proclamations about world events - 'It saddens me, I want world peace' etc. But my question is always, 'How much of that is genuine concern, and how much is just performative? And performative to the level that it's partly performative for themselves, to maintain some kind of image about their own identity?'.

I ask because here's the place I've come to: I don't care. I never did. And I first admitted that on the topic of meat eating actually - I was vegetarian for a year due to the ethics of it, but eventually I caved and went back to meat. And from that I admitted to myself: I value my own comfort and pleasure more than the suffering of the animals I eat.

And I realised that truth applied to all other such issues as well.

Sometimes I suspect that if 'we the people' really cared about these things as much as we claim we do, it would actually be very simple to change the world.

But we don't.

it would actually be very simple to change the world

that's the problem. it isn't simple. it requires hard dedicated labor. it requires conviction to accept some suffering in order to improve things for others. (by suffering here i mean to give up some of your convenience because instead of relaxing at home you are out making new friends)

the first step is to get people to understand that they can indeed contribute to changing the world. this is done through education. not just in schools, but from friend to friend. you believe that changing the world is possible, if we all work on it, so now your task is to go out and convince others of that.

the next step is to understand that in order for change to be effective we need to agree on what needs to be changed. so we need some form of unity. again, unity is built through education and friendship. if you want change, that's your next job.

and that is the job that i have dedicated my life to. and i know many others who have too. as we build unity, people will be spurred into action, and slowly we will change the world. it may take a few more decades, or it may take a few centuries. hard to say at this point. but it's going to happen.

It's not clear what precisely you're asking.

"Does world suffering actually cause people to feel sad?" Yes, of course it does. (If it doesn't for you, you're not necessarily a bad person or something, but you have perhaps compartmentalized it better than some people do.)

"Does the sadness people feel from world suffering cause them to take meaningful action?" Yes as well, though it's not as common. Some people who do feel sad about these things aren't necessarily in a position to do anything about it. (For example, I would ask as a counter - how would someone who feels "genuine concern", as you put it, end the suffering in Iran? What actions would you expect to see out of such a person?)

People do indeed feel sad when bad things happen to other people. Maybe you don't and are honest enough to admit that to yourself.

However, it feels like a self serving rationalisation to say that if other people really cared they would fix the badness, and they haven't, so clearly they are only pretending to care.

> But my question is always, 'How much of that is genuine concern, and how much is just performative?

Would getting an answer to this question change anything to your worldview?

Personally, I feel sad when I see another person in distress because I imagine myself in their shoes.

Do you have to care about fixing something in order to feel deeply sad about it? Do you even have to agree it's a problem?

I am deeply sad that my profession is turning into Claude-whisperer, but there's nothing I can do to stop it, and I'm not sure it would even be moral to do so.

I suspect we are all at the mercy of our own feelings of agency.

"Disce Pati" (Learn Suffering)

it is a good thought. hits deep as well. though, i found it a bit troubling the rejection of one's roots because exalting the past could put less emphasis on the present or the future. i don't think that is universal; partly an erasure mindset. but i understand it in context of the article.

I find that it makes sense as a warning not mythologize your roots. It could even be defended that looking for one's root is indistinguishable from mythologizing. It can be a powerful political tool but ultimately it belongs to those most skilled into making it say what they want.