The whole basis of ALL Wordism is that human nature produces societies that are contrary to human nature.
All Wordism begins with Rousseau’s assumption that in nature all animals are equal, that animals have no wars, that birds sing to attract mates, but hold no territory against other birds.
Even Jesus talked about the birds as if they did not plan for tomorrow. Really? Watch the male get the best tree to attract his mate, watch the birds build their nests.
This is one of the most critical things you can learn from the Old Man simply because he is an Old Man. No one but me seems to remember how totally ALL the forms of Wordism, left and right, were developed when EVERYONE actually BELIEVED that in nature there were no borders, no class distinctions, no war.
That is why there IS Wordism. Wordism assumes that everything “wrong” with “society” is the result of our institutions, our going Away From Nature. Remove civilization, said Rousseau, and all of men’s evil habits would go away.
In fact Rousseau came up with our present assumptions that Noble Savages are just like animals, so they are guiltless and good. Rousseau invented the term Noble Savage.
He never SAW one, of course.
All the other forms of Wordism begin with this same assumption. Marxism says that the only thing keeping us from his idea of the utopia is exploitation. He began with the idea that animals have no class system and no exploitation.
Libertarians believe that if government were removed, people would go back to their natural instinct to be as free as the birds.
But birds are not free. Their nature controls their life to an extent even a Communist government would find hard to imitate.
No social animal has anything like equality.
This is Mantra Thinking. Mantra Thinking does not accept the details everybody is talking about. Mantra Thinking goes back to the assumptions everybody takes for granted.
ALL social science, ALL Wordism, is still in the 1950s before the total revolution about how social animals actually behave occurred and ALL our assumptions about animal and human nature became completely laughable.
I get almost no comments on this. In a seminar, your comments are your own, but the old prof would like to see more talk about how different the world looks when you realize that the ENTIRE so-called Intellectual Discussion is as out of date and as just plain SILLY as arguing how many angels can stand on the point of a pin.
The problem is, we all know the angels on a pin stuff is ridiculous, but we STILL take our outdated “discussion” seriously.