The confidence to think for oneself is usually only gained through one of two ways: possessing all the traits deemed useful and being a superior member of society, or possessing almost none of them and becoming disenfranchised altogether. Therefore, the people that do the most creative thinking are either the ones that rule society or the ones that are outcasted from it.The outcasted members, while not necessarily useless, have not developed any skills that can be fundamentally adapted to the whole, and as such are more prone to developing views apart from the norm, aiding them in pursuit of personal power and freedom. The opposite end of the hierarchical spectrum can be seen by the popularization of cult ideals. Certain elite members of society can be shown as having creative talent by popularizing the ideals that allow themselves more power and freedom through the subjection of the lower classes. While it’s likely don’t have as clear an understanding of the process, the middle of the spectrum, the people that haven’t given philosophic ideals as much insight, are also directed by personal motivation. This is because they live within the system the upper class has set up, a climate in which it is personally disadvantageous to promote or think about unpopular ideals.
Notice that the aims for all three distinct groups is ultimately the same: the consolidation of all available power based on that group’s given intellectual and social abilities. The stratification for such groups however, is not clear cut across all populations, and can vary depending on a number of factors. For example, a lower middle class father who has a family in the United States, may find himself at a such a severe financial disadvantage that he begins to formulate a philosophy antagonistic towards the rich elite. He may use themes such as personal freedom and the destruction of corporatism. However, this same father could also be very secure and content with his place within his family, and would never think of applying such themes to his children. In another example, an average American may rally against the oppression and statism taking place against him by his own country while he continues to purchase Chinese made products. By analyzing this seemingly hypocritical behavior that takes place we can draw one of two conclusions: either that every person on earth is a sociopath ruthlessly campaigning towards their own self-interests despite the needs of others, or that it is much easier to notice when we are being oppressed than it is when we are oppressing others.
This very lack of notice suggests sociopathic tendencies, but for the sake of argument we will dismiss that as an unavoidable part of human behavior, that is, it is simply impossible for us to notice everything and those things that threaten our existence take precedence over those that may threaten the existence or freedoms of another. Could, then, our dismissal of the plights of others just be a byproduct of such an evolutionary based method of prioritizing? When organisms in a population have limited resources, they necessarily destroy each other in order to survive. However, if such traits are present, what happens to the same population when it is given both self-awareness and a concept of time, and virtually unlimited resources?
Bryan's Blog 