Weakism

[Torero]

There's a topic I'd like to discuss and evaluate, which in my non-philosophical terms I am calling "weakism".

 

First I'd like to outline the term, then what's the effect and then what we, as human beings, for 99% non-violent, symbiotic and not in need of coercion, power or statism, can do to actually (help to) prevent this "philosophy" gaining ground.

 

As I explained in the "Introduce Yourself" section, I am a Dutch guy living in Colombia. Seen much of and traveled around the world which helps in understanding different cultures, ways of living and -although not named, but executed or hinted to- philosophy in practice.

 

Back to the topic: Weakism.

 

Weakism is my neologism for a "philosophy" which is the root of many socio-political and kind of philosophical ideologies. It is a state of mind, a comfortable hammock if you will.

 

Weakism is the root of the political correct way of thinking in many Western countries. Weakism is the root of two opposing yet similar philosophies, namely feminism and masculinism (a horrible word, but the male counterpart of feminism). Weakism is the philosophy (not really as it is not based on philosophical principles or context) that states that men are weak. Groups are weak, cultures or countries are weak and weak people are a shame and thus need to be helped by others (effectively in the current way of thinking; our "friend", the State).

 

The root of weakism is one of the main pillars for statism. Weak people need a state to live, is the conviction of many statists. Weak people need a higher power (being it God or State) to represent them, to help them and mainly to protect them.

 

Many anti-statists, however not weak themselves, use this same argument; we need a state to protect the handicapped sheep from the wolves.

 

Weakism relates to another subforum here, called Self-Knowledge. If you know yourself well enough you can pinpoint both your strengths and your weaknesses well enough. Yet, there appears a need for someone, or -more abstract- an organization (like the State) to protect you from others.

 

Where weakism boils down to, is the conception, the idea (it is not the reality) that you are weak. Of course you are not. First you were the only survivor of billions of sperm cells to be able to fertilize an egg, then you survived 9 months in the womb and after that you were able to fight against the sometimes horrors and hopefully peaceful moments of childhood.

 

Weakism has the effect that it calls upon people. People in general are downgraded. In school, in your familes and after that in work. You are either regarded as or treated as a slave of others. Weakism on groups has the effect that it calls upon a certain aspect of you. Anti-racism movements call upon your race, feminist/masculinist movements try to use your gender and statist movements try to use every part of you that will excuse the presence of the state, the presence of a power to guard you, take your personality and (somehow) represent you.

 

Within conservative thinkers weakism is present in the way how you treat others. "No, I'm not weak, but person A or B, yes, that person needs to be subjected to change "immorality" (drugs, choice of marriage, religion, whatever)".

 

The root of this, as mentioned, is based in lack of self knowledge on the most basic level and lack of pride (even with self knowledge) on a more advanced position.

 

The effect of it on larger societies is both downgrading the "weak person" and forcing "stronger" people to support this "weaker" person to become stronger. That in itself is a fallacy as altruism is a fallacy. Downgrading yourself has nothing to do with supporting weaker people. Giving a dollar to a needy person, does not make you weaker. What does, is the dependence. A big problem in developed North America (Canada + US) and Europe. Luckily -I must say and that's why I think libertarianism has a lot of ground to gain here- not so much in the "2nd world" or "the countries on the move". Living in Colombia, a perfect example of a highly entrepreneurial society where weakism is (still?) a very distant subject. The platform for it ("developed" state organizations) are simply missing. They are there but not as widely "accepted" as in the western world.

 

Weakism in combination with lack of knowledge or experience with other countries is also a root in foreign policy. Every country with pride regards itself in foreign policy as the greatest. Humbleness is far away. I do not have to explain this to USAmericans as they -according to the poisonous mix of politics and media- find themselves standing on the shoulders of the gods.

 

Unfortunately also amongst the libertarians there is weakism. There's even a separate subforum for it, called "Gender Issues". The masculinism, the male counterpart of feminism, but equally weakist rooted, is unnecessary. It stems from a position of lack of strength, which may be there in effect (paying alimentation money to your ex wide) but not based by philosophy.

 

It is even going against libertarian/anarchist philosophical principles as egoism and self love (I just watched Stefans great show on Ayn Rand ;-) ).

 

I like philosophy, and I like we have a platform to discuss philosophy. Above all, I like the idea of Stefan of "philosophy via the womb". Not forcing (as it would be hypocritical counterphilosophical) others to become free of coercion and rejecting agression, but educating new generations (in particular your own children) with these beautiful and so ordinary human principles.

 

Thus, to practice (my main issue with philosophy and philosphers is that they stay too much in their philosophical realm) non-weakism (I would not call it "strongism"), is to show others (apart from yourself) that we individuals are not and will not be intrinsically weak. Weakness, weakism, those are external fallacies projected onto individuals.

 

What can you do to counteract (attack would be too harsh of a word) this weakism?

 

First of all, one of the basic principles of philosophy in my amateur mind, is leading by example.

Second is helping others around you to decrease weakism. Point to the uselessness of it, highlight the flaws of weakism. The destructive nature of self pitying.

 

All in all what we have is our capacity to convince others. Non-agressive, non-forceful and utilizing the unique strengths every individual has.

 

As I am not a philosopher (apart from taking Nature as one of my bases for ideas, I'm a geologist), I wonder the following:

 

- is there any already defined "official" term for what I try to outline?

- how are you, fellow members, seeing this?

- how can we reduce the power of the state, which is rooted in many aspects in this weakism, in discussion with others, i.e. how can we make this effective when discussing with other people?

 

I am curious to know your opinions and views.

 

Best regards,

 

Torero

[McBeer]

I have always looked at it as treating people more as victims than as weak. Feminists clearly and repeatedly tell women that they are powerful, except they are victims of a cruel and unjust patriarchy. You can take just about any social justice organization and re-label them as victims of (fill in the blank).

 

The term gaslighting means to try to convince a victim that they are not, but what is the opposite of gaslighting? What do you call it when someone repeatedly makes terrible decisions, and gets told that they are not responsible for the outcome of their decisions?

 

We are all victims of something or someone. It is inevitable in a society that doesn't know what justice is. 

 

I will not define my life by the wrongs that have been done to me, but by the good that I do. I can encourage others to do the same and be an example of a positive force in the world. I can't change the world, but I can change my world. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Why do you find masculinism unnecessary? Are men's claims of abuse not legitimate? I also fail to understand how men speaking out against the abuse they have endured as children as well as teenagers and adults is an admission of weakness. In the face of all the disrespect, heckling and insults, speaking out about abuse is one of the most empathetic and bravest actions for a man. I don't think you understand what it is to be a man.

[Buggy]

Hmm. 

 

I believe that the major problem is modern society itself. In psychology the concept of Maslow's pyramid of needs still stands as one of the models psychiatrists use to navigate from an individuals current state to their and the ideal state. 

To reach "self actualization", following needs should be met in this order

1. Physiological 
2. Safety
3. Love/belonging
4. Esteem

Which needs modern society meets can be debated, however I estimate that the average state of individuals in western societies with average and above financial status is at stage 4. What do you think, considering this:

 

Esteem (4)

All humans have a need to feel respected; this includes the need to have self-esteem and self-respect. Esteem presents the typical human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People often engage in a profession or hobby to gain recognition. These activities give the person a sense of contribution or value. Low self-esteem or an inferiority complex may result from imbalances during this level in the hierarchy. People with low self-esteem often need respect from others; they may feel the need to seek fame or glory. However, fame or glory will not help the person to build their self-esteem until they accept who they are internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can hinder the person from obtaining a higher level of self-esteem or self-respect.

Most people have a need for stable self-respect and self-esteem. Maslow noted two versions of esteem needs: a "lower" version and a "higher" version. The "lower" version of esteem is the need for respect from others. This may include a need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, and attention. The "higher" version manifests itself as the need for self-respect. For example, the person may have a need for strength, competence, mastery, self-confidence, independence, and freedom. This "higher" version takes precedence over the "lower" version because it relies on an inner competence established through experience. Deprivation of these needs may lead to an inferiority complex, weakness, and helplessness.

Maslow states that while he originally thought the needs of humans had strict guidelines, the "hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply separated". This means that esteem and the subsequent levels are not strictly separated; instead, the levels are closely related.