Extreme Nationalism was and is the symptom of the time. Plus Nationalism is perfectly normal as long as it doesn't go extreme.
Try this test with some of the less extreme nationalists you know: show them a photo of planet Earth taken from space and tell them "this is my homeland. I love it and you should too", then watch their reaction. Some of them may agree, but most won't. The point is that planet Earth does indeed contain their entire homeland, but includes other countries too, which is what many people don't accept. This plain stupid test demonstrates how nationalism isn't about loving one's country rather than not loving other people ones.
Only an imperialist with global ambitions would claim the entire planet as his homeland.
>includes other countries too, which is what many people don't accept
You seem to be the one who cant accept that there are other countries that are not for you. Nationalists understand this quite well actually
>nationalism isn't about loving one's country rather than not loving other people ones
Wanting your nation to be sovereign and free of foreign influence is not the same thing as hating other countries like you insinuate. Was Gandhi evil because he was a nationalist? Was Nelsen Mandela? Was Crazy Horse?
This doesn't make sense to me. Would a desire to paint my own house rather than my neighbor's be a form of extremism, or are you thinking about it on some other way than this?
> more accurately what the perfectly natural love everyone of us feels for his/hers own country becomes once filtered and distorted by propaganda with the purpose of making people do nasty things under the belief they're necessary for a bigger good
I accept that this is possible and has historical precedent, but I challenge you to produce any convincing evidence this is always the case.
> Try this test with some of the less extreme nationalists you know: show them a photo of planet Earth taken from space and tell them "this is my homeland. I love it and you should too", then watch their reaction. Some of them may agree, but most won't. The point is that planet Earth does indeed contain their entire homeland, but includes other countries too, which is what many people don't accept.
Have you literally done this, and literally observed that most people don't love planet Earth? I would pay money to see a performance like that in real life, it sounds utterly bizarre and fantastical.
> This plain stupid test demonstrates how nationalism isn't about loving one's country rather than not loving other people ones.
Even if you actually have conducted this test, saying this demonstrates your point is a stretch. I can easily think of a reason I would have a negative reaction to such a "test", my strong dislike for globalism advocates with their poorly thought out reasons for demanding I behave in a certain way - if I got an intuitive feel that this is what your game was, you would likely get an intuitive feel that I was displeased, but be careful what you attribute that feeling to. I would actually consider this a reasonably good example of a poorly thought out idea that I find annoying.
Synopsis: there's a distinction between hypernationalism and nationalism; nationalism has become normalised for a long time, so any "nationalism" that sticks out tends to actually be "hypernationalism", which is destructive and dangerous.
Turkey is an established state. Nationalism in Turkey is a social movement for increased conformity (resulting in a rise of Islam, slowly converting it from merely a widespread religion into a state religion, and cultural homogeneity, rejecting e.g. Greek shared history and ethnic minorities). It has also fueled rhetoric strongly suggesting expansionism (though currently restricted to depopulating Northern Syria to create a "security buffer" and relocating a different, more trusted, ethnic group there).
Kurdish nationalism for decades was a struggle against Turkish nationalism (as well as Iraq, Syria and Iran), fighting for cultural and ethnic recognition of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. The stated goal was to create a separate Kurdish nation state to define and protect a shared Kurdish identity.
More recently, Kurdish politics have moved away from the idea of a nation state. Rojava, although predominantly Kurdish, was explicitly created as an autonomous territory rather than a state and as multi-ethnic, multi-religious and with all central power devolved to the lowest level (i.e. all power is granted directly and explicitly by households forming neighborhoods forming communities). They explicitly aimed to find common ground with Syria, aspiring to become a mere autonomous territory in Syria, rather than a separate state. They eschewed both nationalism (i.e. creating a homogeneous identity) and full statehood (i.e. full political sovereignty and independence).
In reverse order, these are an example of the absence of nationalism, nationalism to create a new nation state (empowering a minority in an existing state) and hypernationalism (refining an existing nation state through increased homogeneity and militaristic expansionism).
It is imperialist.
Usually a person who says something like what you've said is an unwashed Western imperialist, a person who believes that they and people like them know what is right for others. It is an anti-mature view; it is a view that presents people as incapable of growth and requiring the tender care of a select few.
It is also extremely right-wing. It is quite interesting to me how so many people who believe themselves to be left wing advocate policies that a generation ago were plainly understood to be right-wing. But it's no wonder right wing reactionaries are winning out. You'd almost think it was part of a conspiracy.
I know a number of extreme right wing people, some of them relatives to actual fascist militants during WWII, not kids playing as such because it makes them look cool, and I assure you we have nothing in common except sharing the same charcoal at barbecues:)
My views about a single homeland have nothing to do with forcing others to share my culture but rather consider the earth as a close system where if we piss towards East soon or later it will rain from West, and the other way around.
Orwell agreed that Nationalistic thinking was almost totally widespread through different peoples and times, but you appear to be saying that a “normal” amount is Ok which he would have fought passionately.
Orwell wanted us to contend with the Nationalist inside us, and push them out. Just as we wouldn’t accept a “perfectly normal” amount of racism, don’t accept Nationalist feeling as in any way healthy.
Are we just making up meanings for words on the fly now?
It would be rather ironic if I was being downvoted for a lack of hate.
Racism and nationalism aren’t about hate. They are about pride and superiority. Nationalism is often confused or manipulated as patriotism. Racism is often confused or manipulated as pride in culture or the past.
The feeling of superiority enables other behaviors — people feel justified to take negative actions against other humans because they are lesser than them on some axis.
These aren’t made up meanings.
I admit, I lack an understanding of how racism and nationalism both boil down to "my tribe is better than yours". I'll go even further and question whether you just made that up.
> Racism and nationalism aren’t about hate. They are about pride and superiority.
Is this an opinion or a fact?
Wikipedia says:
"Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty)."
I see no need for pride, and a sense of superiority certainly isn't required - I find the idea that my country is superior utterly comical.
> Nationalism is often confused or manipulated as patriotism.
It's also often confused for other things, like a sense of superiority, or National Socialism.
> The feeling of superiority enables other behaviors — people feel justified to take negative actions against other humans because they are lesser than them on some axis.
Perhaps, but this isn't an intrinsic part of nationalism.
> These aren’t made up meanings.
They are interpretations, made up by the author who wrote the interpretations. If the word nationalism has been redefined (as seems to be the case based on comments and voting in threads such as these), perhaps we should get a new one to represent the Wikipedia meaning above. As much as people here seem unsatisfied with my willingness to hate others due to my nationalist beliefs, I refuse to do so to make others happy.
Humans are such curious creatures.
Just think about americans calling the french "dirty frogs" and how is that any different from racism?
A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking that affects the decisions and judgments that people make. Some of these biases are related to memory. The way you remember an event may be biased for a number of reasons and that in turn can lead to biased thinking and decision-making.
Why is a strong national identity a cognitive bias?
> Just think about americans calling the french "dirty frogs" and how is that any different from racism?
It's different in that it is possible for a cultural stereotype to be observed to be true, whereas it has not, at least to my knowledge, been observed that individuals of an ethnic race will tend to behave in a particular way outside of a cultural influence. Culture and race are distinctly different.
If I desire to paint my house but not my neighbors, or have my tax dollars spent in my country rather than another country, am I guilty of unfairly prejudiced thinking?
So is rejection of tribalism, so that doesn't really say anything.
Nationalism is simply the decision of a group, 'the nation' to constitute its own interests and to determine its own laws and rules, not automatically tyranny.
The idea of a global internet is inherently anti-democratic because it excludes the option that nations determine in a sovereign manner what cultural values or laws or rules apply to their communications infrastructure. Given that cultures and laws diverge drastically on speech, religion, privacy and almost anything else it was only a matter of time until conflict would arise.
Up until now it wasn't really a global as much as an American internet anyway, the difference is just that other countries are catching up and reasserting themselves.
Notes on Nationalism is quite different from 1984, more focused on its effects on the individual (obsession, self-deception, etc.) than tyranny per se. He makes the distinction between nationalism and patriotism and his use of term is a bit unconventional (for example he includes pacifist rhetoric as an example of what he calls nationalism).
I think defining the nation as simply "the decisions of a group" loses a lot of subtlety. E.g. what separates the term nation from country or corporation? Drawing on Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, I think identity, community, and mass communication play a big part in this.
An interesting contemporary example of the development of nationhood, was posted here a while back about the transformation of Taiwanese identity, from majority Chinese in the 80s to majority Taiwanese in the 10s.
George Orwell, "Wells, Hitler, And The World State", 1941.
I also can't help but notice that you fail to mention that Orwell's definition of nationalism in "Notes On Nationalism" is somewhat different than the definition used today:
"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Orwell, had he lived today, would be unironically branded as a nazi. And as for his views on communism, oh boy, if he had a twitter account, he'd have a horde of blue checkmarks at his throat every time he had anything to say.
"Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people)[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty)."
I totally agree so far.
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism. Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example."
Mostly agree, but perhaps not necessarily with shared religion or "cultural revivals", depending on what that means.
Orwell's opinion (and unless I'm wrong, it's just that, although it seems to be popularly considered fact nowadays):
"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
I disagree pretty strongly with this. Personally, I'm not terribly patriotic, and I certainly don't consider my country the best in the world, not even close. But But politically, I consider myself a pretty hardcore nationalist. I believe in sovereignty of all nations, I believe a wide variety of approaches to life and organizing society is (or could be...it's a shame more countries don't seem to learn from each other) very beneficial to mankind, and it concerns me that no one seems to worry about whether we're losing some valuable things with the ongoing cultural homogenization of the planet.
This quote is for you then.
> From a philosophical viewpoint, the danger inherent in the new reality of mankind seems to be that this unity, based on the technical means of communication and violence, destroys all national traditions and buries the authentic origins of all human existence. This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations. Its result would be a shallowness that would transform man, as we have known him in five thousand years of recorded history, beyond recognition. It would be more than mere superficiality; it would be as though the whole dimension of depth, without which human thought, even on the mere level of technical invention, could not exist, would simply disappear. This leveling down would be much more radical than the leveling to the lowest common denominator; it would ultimately arrive at a denominator of which we have hardly any notion today.
> As long as one conceives of truth as separate and distinct from its expression, as something which by itself is uncommunicative and neither communicates itself to reason nor appeals to "existential" experience, it is almost impossible not to believe that this destructive process will inevitably be triggered off by the sheer automatism of technology which made the world one and, in a sense, united mankind. It looks as though the historical pasts of the-nations, in their utter diversity and disparity, in their confusing variety and bewildering strangeness for each other, are nothing but obstacles on the road to a horridly shallow unity. This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive. Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Men in Dark Times"
She also said nobody has the right to obey, and I agree with that, so we'd still have plenty to disagree about, but here you pointed to something that also worries me greatly. I'm not a nationalist in the ideological sense, but I also think souvereign nations are a great unit of organization, I don't believe in "smashing borders" anymore than I believe in smashing cell borders. So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.
Ideally, I think most policy should be made at a lower level than the sovereign state in a democratic society. Administration from remote cities seems to create distrust. Best also to keep the army at a different level from the level that needs to respond most effectively to economic upset. This is the opposite direction than we have been trending in for the last several decades but I think it can change quickly.
> This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations.
It can be considered a pre-requisite, but it can also be not considered that. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what path may yield greater harmony. There could be many that will do the trick, or none.
> This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive.
I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.
> Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.
I very much prefer this approach, it would be nice to at least try it and see what happens.
> So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.
I suspect most people have much more common ground than it appears, that this isn't apparent may be due to the major shortcomings in our modes of thinking and communication.
The way I interpret it is that if you remove everything but the lowest common denominator, to achieve the "ultimate unity" of everybody being the same, picking their ideas from small selection on the same shelves, if you will, we'll be faced with ever growing problems we don't have the means to handle, not even the language to adequately describe. We won't physically die, of course, but what makes human agency and spontaneity possible, very well might.
But I can't speak for her, I found the passage interesting but nothing before or after it elaborates on it, and so far I haven't read any other elaboration by her on that (or I did but didn't realize it was connected).
> Orwell, had he lived today, would be unironically branded as a nazi.
Ahh what? By who, some nobody on Twitter? Why are you even bringing this up?
Patrotism is a natural consequence of birth in a place - most of us live in a place with a culture. Many people migrate to another land and grow roots and become a patriot of that place. It is no crazier to be patriotic than it is to love your family.
Nationalism is more like being an Apple fanboi. Someone with slack branding convinced you that your survival depends on throwing your wealth and strength into their service. Normally we call them thugs.
Compared to what? Being a primitive mammal? Sure you could claim that the 'nation' didn't exist long enough to support this but devotion to a local city or tribe feels the same to me.
Thinking negatively of other countries is not necessary, but if you personally choose to be my guest.
Judging the same facts differently depending on the flag they exist under is necessary for what is under discussion here. Where that doesn't apply, this discussion doesn't apply.
> Where that doesn't apply, this discussion doesn't apply.
In which case it would imply correlation (not necessary*), no?
Well, to be a "the negative kind of nationalist". If nationalism is just the idea that nations should exist, and anyone who is for that is a nationalist, then most of us are nationalists, but we don't mean the term like that in this context, at least I don't when I criticize it.
As George Orwell wrote:
> By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'.* But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
P.S. I hate that you got downvoted, but I can't help since I can't vote on comments since a few months, probably because I upvoted too many grayed out comments. HN is not a great medium for longer debate I guess, but at any rate, thanks for this exchange.
>>> Thinking negatively of other countries is not necessary
>> Judging the same facts differently depending on the flag they exist under is necessary for what is under discussion here.
> Can you give an example where I do and must judge facts differently depending on the flag they exist under?
I would like an answer to this question, rather than just yet another pivot to the construction of a negative theoretical character, and then putting a Nationalist label on the character based on one person's opinion.
> By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'.
This is a figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He literally just made it up. This has nothing to do with Nationalism, it is nothing more than a low-intelligence slur. Ironically, it is an example of the very kind of thinking he believes he is criticizing, and this HN thread is chock full of the same sort of irony. Group-based stereotyping isn't only bad when the grouping is according to race.
> I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
Yet another figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He is describing extreme Nationalist Extremism, not Nationalism.
> Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.
Indeed. I am a Nationalist, but hardly patriotic.
> Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
Yes, but one should also be careful to keep one's imagination under control when doing so, and stick to facts and dictionary definitions, rather than literally making things up. One who is an influential intellectual should be even more careful, lest they turn their followers into propagators of illogical hate, something we see plenty of in this thread, and every time the topic comes up.
This thread is full of people behaving as if Nationalist must hate others - I am merely asking all that do so to back up these claims with evidence and (mainly) logical reasoning. No one can do so, and more interestingly, no one seems to notice they cannot do so, or that it is they that are spreading a message of hate. The irony is delicious.
So's this laptop. What's your point?
Just like you don't literally mean "going far", which has nothing to do with distance travelled.
> Nationalism isn't normal
OK. I'm listening.
> , countries are a completely artificial construct.
So. What.
"Grass is not red," OK, I'm with you, I'm very open to what you're writing, even. "Red is an artificial construct," nice non-sequitur and it's not that it isn't true, but so what?
Personally I don't mind the artificiality of countries, but the insanity of the identities some people (artificially) construct around being randomly born somewhere (especially since people who contributed fuck all to wherever they live seem perfectly fine of being rabid nationalists)
Just like it's not a problem that your laptop is artificial, but if you start to pretend it's giving you commands, or if you just do what you want, but claim it's for the good of your laptop, then the problems begin. I wasn't just saying that to be snarky, you know, I was actually making a point. Because it's artificial, created by humans, and you are a human. I just don't know how to make it clearer than that.
I may have been randomly born somewhere, but I am grateful to my ancestors and countrymen for their self-sacrifice (sometimes giving up their lives), for the blood sweat and tears they put into building the nation to be a better place for the next generation. Calling this a form of insanity seems like insanity itself.
> especially since people who contributed fuck all to wherever they live seem perfectly fine of being rabid nationalists
I obey the law and contribute substantial income taxes to my national government that they distribute to others in ways that I don't agree with. I am likely a "rabid nationalist" as you put it, and I am proud to be this way, I believe it is righteous and beneficial.
> but if you start to pretend it's giving you commands, or if you just do what you want, but claim it's for the good of your laptop, then the problems begin
My country gives me commands and I obey them, because it is mostly for the good of my country and fellow countrymen.
I say "constructed identity", you say "I am grateful". If you twist my words to call them insane, that in itself says a lot about the security of your beliefs.
I have that gratitude, too, and I'm grateful to even more people who aren't my ancestors or countrymen. So why make that distinction? It's like saying "I'm grateful to the people with blue t-shirts who showed me kindness in life".
I'm not seeing your point. If it's that my gratefulness is "constructed", well, guilty as charged I guess. Love and most any other emotion people feel is "constructed".
> If you twist my words to call them insane, that in itself says a lot about the security of your beliefs.
You're the one who started with the insult, I simply returned the favor while pointing out the logical flaws in your reasoning for the insult.
> I have that gratitude, too, and I'm grateful to even more people who aren't my ancestors or countrymen. So why make that distinction?
That they're different seems sufficient reason.
> It's like saying "I'm grateful to the people with blue t-shirts who showed me kindness in life".
It might be, if people in blue t-shirts actually had showed me noteworthy kindness in life. But they haven't, so therefore it actually isn't like that, at least according to my logic.
What if constructing such an identity is a trait that has been selected for in humans?
> What if constructing such an identity is a trait that has been selected for in humans?
First of, what if it isn't true? Do you have any evidence that it's true? Right now the jury is still out on the survival of organized human life, and such "identities" play no small part in that.
"selected for" can be a fancy way to say a lot of things, too. For example, some humans went crazy and started murdering others who weren't crazy in the same fashion. "evolution proved we're stronk, so let's just gang up on this person and vote them into the ground". Oh look, they comments are all grayed out, so that proves something, right? Right? Well, no. Unless you subscribe to a Mein Kampf style "might is right" philoshophy, this argument is as valid as physical violence to decide who is right.
My question is not in regard to whether anything is or isn't "fine". The point of my question was to suggest there might be a reason that people form such identities beyond some kind of collective insanity as you suggest.
>Why is the present not also part of evolution, why does something that "evolved in the past" have to be protected from criticism in this way?
You're not just criticizing it, you're calling it insanity. If there is a very good evolutionary reason for that sort of behavior, it's not insanity.
>First of, what if it isn't true?
Then it may be in contention for the longest running collective mania that has afflicted this species.
>Do you have any evidence that it's true?
Sure, humans seem to be predisposed toward forming such identities. That is evidence, though it's not conclusive.
>Right now the jury is still out on the survival of organized human life, and such "identities" play no small part in that.
OK, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> For example, some humans went crazy and started murdering others who weren't crazy in the same fashion. "evolution proved we're stronk, so let's just gang up on this person and vote them into the ground".
Whether it's due to genetics or culture or some combination, formulating these identities seems to have been a successful strategy in terms of populating future generations, which is what is important when it comes to wondering why we are like we are today. And if it turns out to have been helpful in the past, it is certainly worth examining to see what it can do for us today.
Then do that, who's stopping you? You just asked "what if" and then expected me to do it for you.
I'm not asking you to ponder if there are any benefits to it today. Given your attitude, I don't think any discussion on the topic would be productive.
-- Erich Fromm
I would say the person who loves just one nation over all others loves no nation. They may think they do, and they may claim it as they destroy it, but they're incapable of it. Furthermore, I think the mass societies that came into existence in the 20th century, and the rootlessness they produce, also created a form of hypernationalism which is more self-destructive hysteria than even selfish chauvinism.
You can say that, but is it true?
> They may think they do, and they may claim it as they destroy it, but they're incapable of it.
This sounds like you're saying that it's not possible for a Chinese or Japanese person to love their own country more than they love other countries. If so, do you have any evidence that supports this belief?
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Why is the burden to disprove a "love" that has never been proven on me, how would the evidence you're asking for even look like?
I could assemble a set of information that is suggestive of it, but such things are inherently subjective so it could be rightly easily dismissed as inconclusive.
> Why is the burden to disprove a "love" that has never been proven on me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
> The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position (in this case: "I would say the person who loves just one nation over all others loves no nation").
I think it's not a huge stretch to extend this to nations:
> If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person.
-- Erich Fromm
As George Orwell said, either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does... personally I can't wish well for my "own" country without also wishing well to others, too. Because by the same token that I have a "right" to wish well for myself and people close to me, others also have the right to be well.
This seems like an example of this weird cognitive quirk that frequently appears in discussions on (and only on, as far as I can tell) certain identity-related topics: the apparent belief that because something is possible, therefore it is, always and everywhere.
Of course you can have passion/compassion/love for one person, but honestly, where did you pick up this idea that these feelings are some sort of a binary, that you either love all people and things identically, or you don't love anyone at all? The only thing I can think of that even remotely resembles this in observable nature is the behavior of dogs, and even there it seems mostly limited to interactions with humans and other dogs.
> If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person.
I can see how people can be attracted by such prose, but if you look a bit more carefully, note the extremely unusual premise it is built upon, described in the first sentence: a person who loves only one other person, and is indifferent to all others. This is so uncommon, I suspect it would be considered some form of a mental illness.
> As George Orwell said, either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does
Lots of people says lots of things all the time. The question is whether they are true and practically meaningful. Mr. Orwell may enjoy defining the entire planet in terms of a binary of decent or not, utterly ignoring the fact that this has precisely no bearing on the actual experiences of most people, and may even draw people into certain ideologies by doing so, but even a small amount of critical thinking suggests this isn't a terribly useful or "true" idea.
> personally I can't wish well for my "own" country without also wishing well to others, too
Technically, I'm not sure if I can either, because it just so happens that I wish well for my own country and people in all others, and simultaneously, I am also a passionate Nationalist. That which others seem to consider literally impossible, is absolutely effortless to me.
> Because by the same token that I have a "right" to wish well for myself and people close to me, others also have the right to be well.
I wonder if this is a noteworthy difference in our thinking, this notion of "rights". I can agree that everyone has the right to wish themselves well (the pursuit of happiness), but who's obligation is it to fulfill the "right" of being well? (Did you notice you switched from wishing to being in that sentence? Do you personally draw a distinction between the two?)
edit: Heh, I guess some people thing pretending that isn't so will get them a seat at the table. There won't even be a table.
> The frightening coincidence of the modern population explosion with the discovery of technical devices that, through automation, will make large sections of the population 'superfluous' even in terms of labor, and that, through nuclear energy, make it possible to deal with this twofold threat by the use of instruments beside which Hitler's gassing installations look like an evil child's fumbling toys, should be enough to make us tremble.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"
> Now the police dreams that one look at the gigantic map on the office wall should suffice at any given moment to establish who is related to whom and in what degree of intimacy; and, theoretically, this dream is not unrealizable although its technical execution is bound to be somewhat difficult. If this map really did exist, not even memory would stand in the way of the totalitarian claim to domination; such a map might make it possible to obliterate people without any traces, as if they had never existed at all.
-- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
-- Stephen Hawking