Do you Agree with Callicles?

10 posts

Bronze Age Pervert
We have debate...
Bronze Age Pervert

PS yes I agree...

Bronze Age Pervert

Yes, I do agree with it. It is a glorious tale, of the man who discards fair distribution and blind justice and takes whatever he can into his hand, judging by what his eyes tell him.

Good quote BAP. Let's see who will disagree with us, then let's debate them as free men with Athenian logic.

I do not entirely agree with this quote to be honest.

I do believe that might is right at certain times, such as during times of great decadence and spiritual decay, as at times of moral decay strength is needed to uproot those of weak will who have assumed power and spread their poison unto the masses. However, I also believe that it is foolish to condone barbarism within a spiritually healthy civilization, as in a healthy society it is the duty of the strong to assist the weak. It is the duty of the physically strong to protect those men dedicated to contemplation, and it is the duty of those who contemplate to assist those with weaker minds and wills in seeking the Absolute.


> believes the strong should do whatever they want, without moral restriction
> complains about being "terrorized" by lawmakers


Noble men should only attack their equals or superiors.

Bob Dylan Roof
I've wondered about this apparent contradiction as well - in a certain sense, the strong individual is not capable of securing his existence and is overpowered. The distinction seems to exist between the collective and the individual. The rule of law, words, and morality are tools employed by weak, but cunning, individuals to overcome the innately superior individual. Thus it is in fact the brute strength of an aggregate of inferior individuals that overpowers the sovereign individual. From the standpoint of the purpose of evolution, which is to produce superior, differentiated individuals, this is devolution to the state of the hive, the aggregation of cells, and so forth.
No this doesn't make much sense either. What exactly does it mean to be "superior"? Although ATM we are living in a time of enforced mediocrity, if generally a kind of person is unable to wield charisma to rise to prominence and influence the affairs of society, they probably aren't "superior". Is there a kind of superman who's just too cool for school, but no one ever recognizes that he should be in charge? If cunning, which in high concentrations should make one stand out, is excluded from the measure of a man, then you may as well describe chimpanzees as innately superior, since they can manhandle and rape any human being with ease.
Don Johnson
Actually chimpanzee societies are similar to human societies. They're organized into social hierarchies dominated by the most cunning, most socially and politically adept and dominant male chimps. The dominant male chimps aren't necessarily the biggest or strongest chimps. They're the most manipulative and political males who are able to influence the other chimps and organize coalitions of male chimps that can then dominate the rest of the chimps.

I imagine the same basic mechanisms are involved in chimp and human politics: pheromones, vocal utterances (verbal, grunts, etc.), physical display, peer pressure, etc. which elicit and manipulate certain mental and emotional states.

I don't think anything has fundamentally changed or is different in this regard. I don't think it's this cunning which separates man from chimp.

What separates man from chimp may have been initiated with the development of throwing ability in humans. Humans are unique in being able to throw very fast. Chimps may be strong but they can only throw at a top speed of 20 mph, which is slower than how girls can throw. This throwing ability may have then spurred hunting, tool and technology development, bigger brains, etc.

This is why chimps generally can't and don't "manhandle and rape any human being with ease". A primitive man armed with just rocks or the most basic wooden spear can defeat a chimp. It's only in confined spaces with no tools or weapons available that people get manhandled by chimps.

Throwing ability 'helped turn humans from second-rate primate into most successful species on the planet'


You misunderstand completely, the point is that if the ability (cunning) to rise to positions of power doesn't factor into one's superiority (the mediocre "lawmakers" of the quote), then there is nothing left but an individuals physical strength. And since chimps are far stronger than humans.... that's the reason for the reference. This has nothing to do with stone age man vs chimps.....