for sure.
We may say that we have no way of knowing what another person knows or feels in his own consciousness. But do we not know the contents of our own? And make some "reasonable" guesses -- given our common humanity, our common existence -- that would make our (yet unacknowledged) neighbor into our brother?
Does that seem too "idealistic" for you, Hank?
That is no ideal, it is surrender to evil.
Here we have the romantic picture of the Byronic individualist, manifesting an indominable will to always ACT, to always PREVAIL against ALL ODDS!
That is a real ideal.
Here is yours:
It also includes suffering. The Greeks had a name for this: pathos: Our human feeling for the suffering of other human beings.
Suffering is not an ideal, it is evil, it is a picture of all that is to be loathed, reviled, and despised. There is something despicable about making one's suffering and sores some kind of badge of honor to be lifted up as a claim on the lives of others. It is a sacrifice of virtue to vice, of the good to the valueless.
Pathos isn't about what a man does; pathos refers to what is "done to" a man.
No doubt that is what pathos is, and what is wrong with it. Life consists of what one does, not what happens to them. Things happen to a rock.
The reason I am not drawn to Objectivist or Autonomist perspectives is that neither spends much time or effort elaborating the problem of human society...
The only thing wrong with societies is the material they are made of. Those societies comprised primarily of those who are concerned with, "what is done to them," produce Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. Those countries that are comprised primarily of those concerned about what they do produce countries like the United States of America. Take your pick.
I have seen the result of those who seek to solve the "problem of human society," Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, idealists seeking only to alleviate human suffering. And what is that ideal that has unleashed these horrors. It is the same as yours, "... that there really is -- ontologically speaking -- a human community, there really is a brotherhood of mankind ..." Its called collectivism.
I realized the relentless egocentric self-preoccupation of such characters seemed to border on the monomaniacal. I hardly regard them as "role models" myself. [Obviously] It does not follow that any body of thought that pretends to be philosophy or science can profit much from an extreme preoccupation with the discrete, individual self. Balance is needed.
Balance, between what and what? Since it is the "individual self," that is to be "balanced" with something else, what is that something else. It is the community, the society, the collective anything that lays claim to more importance than any concern of a mere individual. Balance means sharing the wealth of the producers with those that do not produce, demanding "help," from those who make something of their lives through "actions," for the sake of those who make wrecks of theirs waiting for something to happen to them. Balance means sacrifice of the individual to any collection of looters, parasites, and thugs claiming to be "society".
While the relentless egocentric self-preoccupied monomaniacs of this world, like Thomas Edison, are producing those things that really do improve the lives of human beings and relieve human suffering (the amount of human suffering the light bulb alone has prevented is inestimable), it is the altruists, like Mother Teresa, who have never produced a single thing that relieved the suffering of a single human being, who are held up as "ideals." There is a reason why Mother Teresa's flourish in India, and Thomas Edisons flourish in the United States. It's called individual liberty, without which no other true ideal can possibly be realized.
(There is another reason, of course. Mysticism and superstition are dominant influences in India, reason is a dominant influence in the United States.)
Hank
This is news to me, Hank. There is a distinction to note between an idealist and an ideologue. These men were the latter, plus brutal, vicious dictators, the very spawn of Hell.
I don't know how you could possibly interpret what I wrote as an endorsement or recommendation of suffering -- of pathos -- Hank. I was simply making an observation about the human condition. How could you spin it like that? Are you nutz?
Balance means sharing the wealth of the producers with those that do not produce, demanding "help," from those who make something of their lives through "actions," for the sake of those who make wrecks of theirs waiting for something to happen to them. Balance means sacrifice of the individual to any collection of looters, parasites, and thugs claiming to be "society".
Good grief, Hank -- are you joking? This is not what "balance" is!!!
...altruists, like Mother Teresa, who have never produced a single thing that relieved the suffering of a single human being, who are held up as "ideals." There is a reason why Mother Teresa's flourish in India, and Thomas Edisons flourish in the United States. It's called individual liberty, without which no other true ideal can possibly be realized.
Frankly Hank, I'm astonished at you. Talk about ideologues! If you actually believe this bunk, then I am completely at a loss to understand why you think you know what individual liberty is.
Thus Spake Hank Kerchief
But fading fast!