The article doesn't say if the tribes were exceeding Dunbar's number ?
> And most of the time everyone went to some lengths to avoid being singled out for selfishness or self-importance. Unsurprisingly, this created an atmosphere that was harmonious and that was torn asunder only rarely when someone felt wronged.
Can we assume the atmosphere was good just like that ?
A good book on the topic - on the opposite side of this article - is Helmut Schoeck's "Envy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schoeck#Envy:_A_Theory_... ), in which the author rather assume that theses kind of societies were oppressive and gives example of people fleeing out of there in hope to build a better future for them
It's quite common for people to idealize something foreign they don't understand, whether a romanticized tribal life or some mythical Shangri-La in the East.
Well whatever we think of the overall point on equality, I have to congratulate Lewis on:
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
This has to be one of the most dishonest pieces of writing I've ever read. Why stick the thesis, namely: "envy and resentment are good," at the bottom? Why pepper the article with Marxist terms like "late capitalism"? Is it maybe because the author is trying to trick you into agreeing with them?
I thank the author for keeping me on my toes about intellectual dishonesty.
The “late capitalism” bit stuck out like a sore thumb for me, too.
Regardless of the author’s agenda, I found the article worthwhile for really calling to my attention the powerful role that envy possibly plays in various human societies.
6 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 28.4 ms ] thread> And most of the time everyone went to some lengths to avoid being singled out for selfishness or self-importance. Unsurprisingly, this created an atmosphere that was harmonious and that was torn asunder only rarely when someone felt wronged.
Can we assume the atmosphere was good just like that ?
A good book on the topic - on the opposite side of this article - is Helmut Schoeck's "Envy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schoeck#Envy:_A_Theory_... ), in which the author rather assume that theses kind of societies were oppressive and gives example of people fleeing out of there in hope to build a better future for them
And on egalitarian: http://www.cslewis.com/c-s-lewis-and-kurt-vonnegut-on-egalit...
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
I thank the author for keeping me on my toes about intellectual dishonesty.
Regardless of the author’s agenda, I found the article worthwhile for really calling to my attention the powerful role that envy possibly plays in various human societies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante