• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    19 months ago

    Wait lets back up und make sure we understand each others point:

    The way I see your perspective: you say that individual role in history is rather unimportant, we are all just part of some complex process wich leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control. Is it fair representation or did I miss something?

    My perspective is: in the end it’s individuals/groups who make specific things that contribute to progress, while sometimes the individuals might be replaceable, they sometimes also leave their individual marks on the events or theories they create (Freund vs. Jung for example - if Jung was more influential we might have quite different psychology). And even if they are replaceable, in the end it’s still individuals that have to make things happen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      some complex process which leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control.

      I actually have no idea where the process is going, and can’t rule out the enlightenment as a transitory phase, which scares me more than anything. If you just meant progress as in evolving some way, then yes.

      And even if they are replaceable, in the end it’s still individuals that have to make things happen.

      And this is where I agree, but don’t see the significance. In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same. Is this a free will vs. determinism thing, maybe? Or maybe you’re thinking in normative terms, while I’m thinking in in descriptive terms.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        I think this more of a perspective thing, that might be related to free will vs. determinism.

        In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same.

        Lenin or Trotkij taking power leads to rather different outcomes in my opinion.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          (I assume you mean Stalin, unless this is a different guy I don’t know about)

          So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out, though, and that was just one ago. On the other hand, if it would have lead to some complex chain of events ending in certain MAD, that could take millennia to become a human footnote, and would leave extinctions that may not ever be reversed. The 20th century was kind of a metastable point where everything is amplified.

          I hear Trotsky was also pretty unpopular. He was Lenin’s chosen heir, so I’m guessing he had a chance, but even if Stalin had died at some point pre-revolution it’s possible Zinoviev or someone would have taken his place.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            No I actually meant Leon Trotsky, just wrote his name from memory. He wanted more the Cambodian way of communism.

            So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out

            Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end. Since I like to view history from human point of view this seem pretty relevant. If you take an impartial abstract point of view - than nothing really matters since the universe will disappear anyway at some point. Maybe that’s the difference in our perception.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yeah, Trotsky vs. Stalin. You wrote Lenin, who you probably know was a predecessor to both of those two rivals, and who died of apparent natural causes related to old age shortly after the revolution.

              Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end.

              Oh absolutely! We’re not totally powerless, just nearly. In some ways that’s harder, because we still have to try if there are some things we can make better.

              In real life, I do activism, and I’ve been a vegetarian for years. What this has changed is that I focus more on the quiet background side of activism, and I don’t stress out about being super ambitious. If I had money, I’d do philanthropy. If I was born into an autocracy, I’d just have to settle for being kind to whoever I come across, and supporting the less-terrible side when, outside of my control, wartime or revolution comes. And sometimes, I also try and contribute to the discussion intellectually.

              The same would apply if I had been born Charles Darwin. I’m not Darwin, though, and the only thing I control are my own actions. He’s just a part of history, like everyone else in that era. Many argue about the free will of individuals, but large groups definitely have no free will. For example, advertising and political campaigning, major industries, are built on top of that fact.