Purpose of Society

[gla22]

Is there a general consensus on the purpose of society here?
general purpose of society: To allow for individuals to achieve more for themselves through mutually beneficial cooperation. The role of government is to facilitate this.

Now I believe like many here that decentralization is key because even though the general purpose of society is clear, and may even be present in totalitarian governments, what people want their society to achieve cooperatively is different. Even totalitarian states may work to "To allow for individuals to achieve more for themselves through mutually beneficial cooperation" because at various times in early history authoritarian, centralized regimes survived whereas the egalitarian systems were crushed. A state was a necessity of survival and states were subject to a natural selection like conditions. The examples I have seen are documented in Guns, Germs and Steel.

So my point here is pretty much that it will require a more internationally peaceful world before the authoritarian power of states can be relaxed and the economic systems can be less authoritarian. A state of war justifies measures that would not be acceptable in peacetime. I wonder if members of the government understand this, it seems like the Bush administration did for sure. In conclusion, authoritarianism at various points in history was necessary for societal survival but as the world political climate changes they authoritarian systems are no longer necessary even though backwards systems may still be in place. I am unsure whether the fall of totalitarian states is "inevitable" when the climate no longer requires it.
Your thoughts?

[Gracian]

Well, for me the purpose of society is what Nietzsche believed it to be and what he called proper culture. To create an environment in which great individuals can live and grow. It is to be orderly like a garden in which the weeds are pulled and the desired plants are properly watered and taken care of.

So in a way I do agree with what you first stated that society is there to achieve more for themselves through mutually beneficial cooperation, but the reason to do this is not necessarily to help themselves as an end, but as a means to create something greater than themselves.

If an authoritarian government has this goal in mind and knows the proper way to achieve it then I support this government if it is a more aristocratic or even democratic then I would approve of this government as well. To me the first question is the goal and what the person or people in charge wish to do that is most important to me and not the form of the government.

[War God]

Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.
[WP 53 (1888).]

Cf. The Greek State (1872); I have made a study of it here.

[gla22]

To create an environment in which great individuals can live and grow.

So in a way I do agree with what you first stated that society is there to achieve more for themselves through mutually beneficial cooperation, but the reason to do this is not necessarily to help themselves as an end, but as a means to create something greater than themselves.

Don't these seem a little contradictory? Is the state for the advancement of the individual or is their some emergent property in a society that is desired?

[Gracian]

Gla22 said:

Don't these seem a little contradictory? Is the state for the advancement of the individual or is their some emergent property in a society that is desired?

Well, I don't think that I contradicted myself. I think that the advancement of the individual is the emergent property that is desired by a society. And the type of individual that is desired to emerge from society should be that of the overman. Thus society is that which changes the environment into something that would be beneficial to the emergence of greater individuals and eventually the overman.

An individual today, say, would never be able to achieve becoming an overman. We simply live in an environment where this is impossible; however, we can work towards a day when this might be possible. Nietzsche's optimism is for the future, and not the near future, but the distant. In order for someone to work towards becoming as great of an individual as he possibly can, in order to reach a new height, so that others can then reach a higher height: "You force all things to and into yourself that they may flow back out of your well as the gifts of your love." (Nietzsche: On the Gift-Giving Virtue). Thus Nietzsche links the noble selfishness with the gift-giving virtue very tightly in Zarathustra.

So what I am trying to say is that society is there to have the individuals achieve more for themselves in order to give to the next generation a better place of living that is of more fertile ground for that generation to become greater then the previous; however, if this "achieving more for themselves" is just for themselves, with no intent on giving to the next generation. Then this is a kind of sickly selfishness that ends with itself and, is thus, a philosophy of the last man. This last man philosophy is very rampant today and goes by the name of capitalism.

[Belarion]

Is there a general consensus on the purpose of society here?
general purpose of society: To allow for individuals to achieve more for themselves through mutually beneficial cooperation. The role of government is to facilitate this.

I see a conflict of interest in this.

Aristocrats, artists, and philosophers do not like to co-operate unless it is of the utmost necessity, and then only briefly and reluctantly.

The mainstream of society is thoroughly anti-individualistic, and resentful of this type of individual. The de-facto role of government is to promote egalitarian sheep-think.

Government and society attracts the wrong type of person. I personally cannot think of any course of action furthering my own extropian, Promethean aspirations that does not directly conflict with the overall goals and philosophy of any government in existence. The sort of ‘society’ I could support is not only fascist, sexist, immoral and reactionary from the modern point of view, I am quite sure it is fiscally impossible to achieve in any foreseeable future, barring drastic reversals to the global œconomy and a massive reduction of the planet’s population.

They don’t want me; I don’t want them.

[War God]

The sort of ‘society’ I could support is not only fascist, sexist, immoral and reactionary from the modern point of view, I am quite sure it is fiscally impossible to achieve in any foreseeable future, barring drastic reversals to the global œconomy and a massive reduction of the planet’s population.

Sounds good!

[War God]

Well, for me the purpose of society is what Nietzsche believed it to be and what he called proper culture. To create an environment in which great individuals can live and grow.

But what does "live" mean? In fact, the phrase "live and grow" suggests that it means what it can only mean, in a Nietzschean context: will to power. "To create an environment in which great individuals can will to power." And this in turn implies what Belarion seems to be alluding to:

The enhancement of the type fatal for the preservation of the species? Why?
History shows: the strong races decimate one another: through war, thirst for power, adventurousness; the strong affects: wastefulness---[...]; their existence is costly; in brief---they ruin one another[.]
[WP 864.]

Nietzsche's intended political experiment seems to rests on a supposed possibility of "a shorter but more valuable existence for the species" (ibid.). But in fact, I don't think Nietzsche necessarily supposed that at all... Thus he continues:

It would remain to be proved that, even so, a richer yield of value would be gained than in the case of the shorter existence; i.e., that man as summation of strength acquires a much greater quantum of mastery over things if life is as it is--- We stand before a question of economics---
[ibid.]

Only if said quantum of mastery is much greater is the longer existence preferable to the shorter for Nietzsche; only if the total value is much greater is a lot of lead better than a little gold...

Against the value of that which remains eternally the same [...], the value of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita---
[WP 577.]

[gla22]

Aristocrats, artists, and philosophers do not like to co-operate unless it is of the utmost necessity, and then only briefly and reluctantly.

Where would Nietzsche be without society? His philosophy is great but he too stood on the soldiers of giants. Society allows for specialization, it would be a shame if all of Nietzsche's energy was spent chopping would and herding as an illiterate shepherd.

Great post Gracian, it is quite illuminating.

[Gracian]

War God said:

But what does "live" mean? In fact, the phrase "live and grow" suggests that it means what it can only mean, in a Nietzschean context: will to power.

Well yes I think you are right that to live and grow can be taken in the Nietzschean context of Will to Power. Nonetheless I did not mean it in that sort of way. I just meant it in the common everyday use of the term "to live and grow". A description of what I mean would simply be that the person lives in society in a relatively peaceful, non life threatening, way and grows from a child into an adult and then to an old man, but, unlike modern life, allowed to pursue those things that would help make him a more independent and complete individual (this is the difference from today, and in a sense this in itself is Nietzsche's will to power).

Belarion said:

Aristocrats, artists, and philosophers do not like to co-operate unless it is of the utmost necessity, and then only briefly and reluctantly.

I disagree, there are many examples in history where all three willingly participate in government and politics. Also, Gla22 is right, such people are dependent on society. If you had no society you would have to make your own home, hunt and grow your own food and make your own clothes, thus giving you little time to create art or to philosophize. So despite the fact that you don't like them and they don't like you the harsh reality is the exception needs the masses more than the masses need the exception. Another important thing to remember is Nietzsche's warning that the exception must not want to become the rule.