Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 2,511 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 101
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, May 13, 2021, 10:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

@ Jason R.,

"how do you distinguish totalitarian societies from garden-variety autocracy?"

I've never considered that question specifically, but I imagine it would be a combination of culture and structure. Autocracy seems to revolve around one or few people making all the decisions. So a tribal culture with a king 10,000 years ago would be autocratic. But to be totalitarian that culture would also have to incorporate the belief that the individual's primary duty is to serve the state. While modern retrospectives tend to view any autocratic government as being ipso facto a tyranny, in fact I suspect that many historic cultures were both autocratic but also dispersed in terms of its values. For example, a feudal England had a king but also places high value on the rights and individual powers of the local lords and dukes, who - while subject to the king - were not mere slaves but had a significant dignity and authority of their own. The feudal system worked on the spreading out of honor and a decentralized governance, even while the king was overall sovereign. Autocratic after a fashion, but not totalitarian by any means. The Roman Empire is probably another example of an autocracy in which the individual was by no means understood to be a mere vassal of the ruler or ruling party. The plebs, maybe, but the patricians had more standing than that. For a third example, I just read Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and the WWI-era Arabs seem to be very much an individualistic society (so not totalitarian) but they did have a king; therefore autocratic. They, too, had a dispersed power arrangement.

By contrast, the USSR seemed to place little to no value on any human life, and even though Party members had exclusive rights and privileges, they too could vanish if they stepped out of line; and this is probably even true of those right at the top. I've not versed enough in the minutiae to be able to argue whether even the ruler himself was afraid of stepping out of line, but my guess would be yes. So from this perspective the Soviets were utterly totalitarian, but depending on how you look at it maybe not so autocratic. Could the chief really just do anything he wanted, or was he tightly reigned in by the mob around him? Perhaps you could call that an oligarchy, but once we go down that road many cultures that have oligarchic elements could just as soon be said to have autocratic 'flavor'. But I think the sense in which you're using the term implies a clear individual or circle at the top exercising clear and absolute power (like in North Korea). And I would say that China falls under that category. But now I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the Chinese government structure to say more. Maybe they are both autocratic (the rulers(s) can do anything with impunity) and totalitarian (the culture and power structure place the individual as completely subservient to the state).

There's a moral, or perhaps philosophical element to this as well, which is that totalitarianism not only involves the populace being subject to the state, but like in 1984, the morality actually stating outright that this is their function. Contrast with certain types of autocracy, such as let's say Vikings or maybe the Mongols under the Khans, where while there was an absolute ruler (the best warrior, perhaps) but where the individuals were really in charge of themselves and vital in serving their own interests. The Klingons are similar to this, maybe. In this kind of culture the morality of following the absolute leader necessitates that he's the greatest of them, is above them in power, but still has to prove his worth time and again. And the public morality in this kind of culture seems to involve some kind of guarantee that the individuals will profit or at least gain honor from participating in the ruler's demands, but that they will probably depose him if he is weak or starts disregarding the spoils due the warriors that go into combat. It's not just a governance thing I'm trying to point out, but the actual morality that you're only fit to be ruler if you are XYZ, win us battles, get us booty, etc. This is certainly autocratic in terms of power structure but more or less the opposite of totalitarian.

I could list many other examples of divergence between autocracy and totalitarianism, but I should probably stop...
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, May 13, 2021, 6:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

Maybe it's wrong-headed to define totalitarian in terms of being a monstrous tyranny that wreaks havoc on the populous. I think the term in its basic sense means a society where the priority of health is on the society, government, or state, rather than on the individual. This can probably include states where the individual's well-being (and rights) are merely secondary to that of the state, or in fact are totally irrelevant. We could get into whether the rights of individuals being irrelevant can even possibly result is a stable society, but putting that aside the chief feature of totalitarianism seems to be that the totality (however it's seen) is the chief sovereignty. Contrast with a democracy, where the sovereignty of the individual is inalienable and (according to that philosophy) is subservient to no one without consent.

To the extent that China's society allows for government to exercise any means it deems fit to establish control; that individuals would have no say or recourse if the government acted against them personally (like if you were disappeared or arrested); and that even morally the general ethic is geared up towards the collective rather than the individual vis a vis one's duties and allegiances; so from this standpoint I have no trouble suggesting that China is totalitarian in the most meaningful sense of the term. That doesn't need to mean it's a brutal tyranny burning fields and disallowing commerce. Even Nazi Germany was still a commerce-oriented society, and from the perspective of a well-off German they probably would have felt that it was a pretty free country in terms of what they could choose to do with their day (so long as that didn't include criticizing the state or helping 'dissidents'). There's a big difference between that, and between the sort of tyranny where really no one is allowed to have anything and you can expect a pogrom to come any day for basically no reason.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:48am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Rightful Heir

Putting aside that the TOS Romulans were given Roman titles and an aristocratic bearing, I'd say the Dominion is most like the Roman Empire. They conquer regions that are sometimes allowed to self-govern within parameters, the legions come in when there's a problem, and the leaders are declared to be gods. Although to be fair, this was probably not uncommon, since afaik the Persians for example also deified their leaders.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Wed, May 12, 2021, 10:34am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2

"The rich people living in gated communities in California are Marxists."

It's probably more accurate to say that the rich people living in gated communities are often amoral in regard to how money is made, and pandering to a social movement of any stripe would be acceptable if it brought in the bottom line. That the far-left BLM movement is in vogue in powerful circles seems to me to make it obvious that people will try to cash in on that. It doesn't make them Marxists; quite the opposite, in fact, since they are the very type of people co-opting public discourse for personal benefit.

That being said:

"Nihilism and Marxism are completely incompatible"

I think Rahul's point is perhaps less that Marxism is put forward as a kind of nihilism, but rather that on a psychological level the same motive spurring people on to Marxist paradigms can also lead to a nihilistic outlook; or perhaps that too long spent in a headspace of resentment will lead to a decline in the positive energies of life, which is perhaps equivalent to becoming nihilistic. At any rate, I don't think Rahul was suggestion that nihilism is some sort of philosophy spelled out through Marxist. That indeed wouldn't make any sense.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, May 8, 2021, 4:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night

@ Booming,

You think someone forced into sexual servitude upon pain of losing her family, and then keeping house under implicit threat, and eventually succumbing to Stockholm Syndrone, is "the very definition of a collaborator"? I think you might want to rethink that. You can debate the particulars of my points, perhaps, but not the main issue, which is that she did not voluntarily sign up for this service. Contrast with the Bajorans who were working as foremen of the other Bajorans for the Cardassians, even working them hard and pursuing punishment for them. They were in all essential ways Cardassian agents. But a woman who allows Dukat to play his delusional love game with her to help her family? I think a more reasonable way to call her would be a victim who lost some perspective due to not much fault of her own.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:50am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Course: Oblivion

@ RonB,

You can always deconstruct any metaphor and invent a context in which it means something new. My point was that the profound 'meaning' found in something puerile is an artistic invention of the critic, not of the author. You're focusing on the author's intent. I'm saying that even if the author outright lacks intent someone clever can always pretend they had one anyhow. That doesn't make it so. I have to evaluate art in the theatre all the time, and I get to know pretty well when a work has meat in it versus when it's a piece of fluff. The mental gymnastics of a reviewer don't always reflect legitimate content.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 7:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@ Trish,

The thing about the Catholic vocations is that they are by definition a personal devotion to the greatest cause of all. So from that standpoint the meaning of life is provided by one's chosen call to serve. In Trek terms this bears some resemblance to serving Starfleet, for example. Among both Christians and non-believers having children is the most chosen life decision, so even non-Catholics will (from Christian perspective) end up going down that path of meaning whether or not they consciously think of it that way. Jason R mentioned he's not religious, but that having children feels like the ultimate good, which in Christian terms is the feeling of a call to vocation. I agree with you that there are perhaps other calls to great service that don't involve children or great works (e.g. 'building cathedrals'), although to be fair most people who don't see the world in beautified religious terms will almost certainly not feel their secular works (going to the office, going shopping, watching TV) to have much of a significant meaning. But there are no doubt secular, childless people who do highly meaningful things, such as building houses in Central America or doctoring in Africa. But those people probably know what they're doing is important. I think the default and perhaps ambivalent activities pursued by most people aren't even really controversially called mundane. The complaint of our time is that work seems to mostly feel empty. So for most, at any rate, that really does leave children and great works as things that feel legitimately special. Obviously when all action of any kind can be placed within a spiritual framework, then even the most humble action can be undertaken for the sake of all. But it really does matter (to the individual) that there's that conviction behind it for it to feel like that's what it is. Otherwise it will be tough to convince yourself that your life is remarkable in any significant way. To be honest, this is what Nietzsche said would happen when value (God) was stripped from everyday life, and I believe he was correct.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Bread and Circuses

@ Tidd,

Cool reflections on the episode, thanks. For what it's worth, I think the writers were probably correct that sun-worship was not exactly the standard religious practice in Rome in the first few centuries AD. To whatever extent the Romans were actual adherents to the Greek religion, and perhaps you can answer this, I imagine it would have been at minimum gauche to deny the supremacy of Jupiter and the other gods. But in the episode's context I think they are also talking about how there wouldn't have been a widespread sun-worship movement. So even if the odd weirdo did adopt a more Egyptian religious aspect, it wouldn't have been a popular thing...right?

For your point about English, maybe there's a semi-altered history element they're implying, where an English speaking PD violation led to an English speaking Roman empire (with proconsuls...). So it wouldn't be a precise parallel to Earth's Italy, but close enough in most respects.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@ William B,

For what it's worth, also remember that having biological children is largely a genetic venture. Meaning, as much as we have high-faluting (or something negative) views about our ideas, our character, etc etc, it's the genes that are going to shape the basic core of their character. I can kind of see the argument that people with genetic problems like disease might want to watch out, and I know people who would have enormous medical problems themselves if they got pregnant. But passing on our flaws...somehow it moves the world toward greatnesss anyhow. It's just counterintuitive sometimes how that could possibly be.

Maybe it's some kind of privilege speaking, but I'm also not so sure that the risk of being sent of the rails as a result of having kids is...I dunno...the end of the world. Lots of crazy eventualities can happen when making decisions, and even 'bad' result may not actually be bad in a larger sense. Just look at Picard being stabbed: who in their right might would celebrate that? The absurdity of actually choosing that over not being stabbed is worthy of a big laugh at minimum. We here on the ground don't have the vantage to know we actually should pick what he picked, which is why it takes a god to show him the objective truth about his choice. For us, we just choose and have to have some kind of faith that it's all worth it. Even the bad results have to be seen as good in some greater sense. WWIII and the Eugenics Wars lead to the Federation. Without them, no Enterprise and no Picard. That's just how history works, it would seem. It's a sort of modern corporate concept that a failure constitutes some kind of horrible situation to be avoided at all costs, which reflects on one's character no less. 'That worthless failure of a person', as the epithet goes. Well I don't believe in that.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 12:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@ William B,

Sorry to hear about that, and it's a very understandable thing for you to feel. However it requires a sort of premise like "life is only worth it if there's little to no suffering", a proposition to which I would strenuously object. Maybe part of that comes with being an artist, but for a couple thousand years there seemed to be essentially a Christian Western consensus that not only is pain and suffering not an objection to life, but in fact it's arguably a crucial ingredient making life have a higher meaning. Now obviously I'm not suggesting you adopt that premise for this reason, but just pointing out that it's a fairly new, and IMO psychologically problematic concept, that life's suffering is an argument against life (and creating new life). For most of history suffering was just a fact of life, to degrees we probably can't imagine. And even if some children do curse their parents in some sense, even that doesn't mean they haven't been given something great. After all, one's conception of one's parents is not actually going to do justice to the 'cosmic' sense in which everything exists. Maybe as an analogy, if a surgeon had to disable use of someone's leg to save their life, certain people might curse the surgeon even though objectively it was obviously a great thing to save the person's life. We're not up to the task of properly weighing what is good for us, unfortunately.

That being said, and if I may say so, if anyone has reason to fear that they shouldn't be a parent, I would wager you have less than most to fear. I don't know you on a personal level, but the products of your mind give me reason to vouch for you. You will not be a bad influence, even if you have flaws I'm not aware of (as we all do). Do what you think is right, but never think you are unworthy.

Getting back to the episode for a moment, I still believe that it's not that Picard believes that a life of mediocrity is to be condemned, it's just that it doesn't live up to his own ambitions. Obviously there has to be actual mediocrity in the world, it's just a truism. He wouldn't rail against that. But all the cockiness and self-assurance he had as a youth is still with him, which is why he feels this way. He's still the guy who got stabbed, and I think that's Q's message. He didn't actually change, it's just this is what that guy becomes after taking responsibility seriously. Picard's position was "thank god I'm not that guy anymore", and Q's answer is to show him who he actually would have been had he really not been that guy.

Now about Jason R's comment about children/greatness, it seems a perennial topic regarding how to become immortal, so to speak, and historically family and legacy are the two ways. I'm not sure I'd be quite so sure about limiting it to those absolutely, but if one's goal is to have a *noticeable* and lasting impact, it's hard to argue that these are the two chief ways. Many people just won't make as much of a splash on history. That's sort of ok, not exactly reason to condemn anyone, but it's perfectly reasonable for someone like Picard to say it's not good enough *for him.*
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 10:25am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

"I never bought the premise that not getting stabbed turned Picard into a timid little wallflower."

Good thing that's not the premise, then.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 9:55am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: The Offspring

@ Jeffrey Jakucyk,

Actually, Measure of a Man rested on the argument that Maddox could not prove that Data *wasn't* sentient, and this was based on the premise that it's not entirely clear what sentience is. If it cannot be explained in explicit detail why a human is sentient then sentience is a fuzzy concept, and so there is not enough specificity there to claim with certainty when a being lacks that property. The matter was therefore left open to doubt, which was not enough to enslave a potential 'race'. But Data being ultimately non-sentient is a consistent premise with how Measure of a Man concluded. There was no determination that Data should be afforded the same rights and privileges, but rather that he could not be treated as Starfleet's toaster until more was understood about him. It would still be possible, for example, for him to have the rights of a pet, insofar as he might not be sentient, but might still have to be treated with a certain level of dignity and not be seized from his ship and taken apart.

One thing is for sure, that in TNG they never made a hard claim about Data is or isn't, unlike VOY, which distinctly took the position at a certain point that Doc was a person. I would tend to agree that VOY overstepped in this regard since there's no more evidence that he is as compared with Data. As I recall Andy's Friend was arguing a while back that, if anything, because Data has a physical body this may indicate that he has a greater likelihood of actually having some kind of personhood.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 10:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: The Vengeance Factor

@ Trish,

"There really are only three possible endings for the Yuta character: She kills, she is killed, or she gives up killing."

In principle there is a fourth option: you have such superior capabilities to Yuta that you can render her harmless. I suppose in the case of this episode the argument some are making is that she could have been stopped short of death and then, perhaps, imprisoned or something. In real world terms this doesn't map very well since we'd be talking about entire peoples rather than one person with a bio-agent. History doesn't seem to have borne out the idea that it's possible to stop an aggressive nation with non-lethal means, and if the episode has a significant failing in the final scene I think it's that its message is honestly metaphorical rather than literal. The literal play of events is lacking, whereas the meta-message is probably what they were going for (i.e. you a group of attackers will have to be stopped with lethal force if they can't be reasoned with).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 10:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Sacrifice of Angels

@ Sigh2000,

I like that Exodus reading of the story. Seems to fit pretty well.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

@ Rahul,

I'm always willing to engage in real discussions, even with posters who are all over the map. If it's possible, I'll try. That it can degenerate into nonsense is a risk to be sure. Overall I just try to ignore and not respond to inflammatory and trollish comments, but I don't hold grudges so I'll treat any serious post seriously. I personally don't like the idea of cutting people out of the discussion.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 11:56am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

"Is it now clearer?? :)"

No...
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 10:26am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Booming, my point is not to debate whether the prequels were world-class successes. Although if you figure toy sales into it you may find they were. But rather it's that *no one* walked out of ep 1 utterly disgusted, even though some were let down a bit. But hoards of people utterly despised ep 7 and ep 8 right out of the gate. So it's not really comparable. To the extent that there's prequel hate, it was mostly retroactive. I know literally no one who was actually upset or disturbed in the cinema during the prequels. Criticisms - sure. But a good friend of mine (among others) had to go see ep 7 a second time to make sure he wasn't crazy. He said nothing to me other than he needed to see it again, so my first viewing was his second. By the end of it he was nearly in tears, and asked me to make sure he wasn't imagining things. "It was...horrible...right?" And I confirmed that it was nearly impossible to even sit through. His comment then was funny: "It's...it's...worse than EPISODE 1!!!" He happens to be one of the retroactive detractors of the prequels, so he's not even invested in everything Lucas is gold. I'm much more of a Lucas believer (at least in his story vision).
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 5:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

@ Booming,

I think it's a more non-linear claim than a black and white yes/no proposition. I do know that everyone who claims that episode 1 was hated is re-writing history, because when it came out everyone had a blast. The main complaint was the minimal presence of Darth Maul, in contrast to his hype in the adverts. Even then the Jar-Jar complaints were not as numerous as they later became. And it was a different time; the racism was sort of laughed off rather than offending much of anyone. iirc it was more around episode 2 came out that many began to be turned off of the new saga, especially in light of some extremely weak scripting at times during that installment. Nothing in ep 1 was bad in that particular legendary way. And by the time of ep 3 I do think there was a bit more of a split in reaction, but most people agreed it was a pleasant improvement after ep 2, many viewing ep 2 as the blip but feeling that ep 3 redeemed the trilogy. Personally I find ep 3 the least interesting story, although technically it's a tighter production.

But I do agree with the general point that the "they were terrible movies" is largely revisionist, because this wasn't a majority opinion during the release of ep 1. Most people I knew IRL were thrilled with the FX, landscapes, and the action, many of whom were non-SW fans but went because of the hype. These non-fans would often go more than once as it was such a phenomenon. Any objections to ep 1, often found best in the many edits of the film floating around, are totally valid but not evidence that people hated it when it came out. They certainly didn't.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 4:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@ Maq,

I can see what you mean. I do think it's evidence that Picard is still as arrogant as he ever was, just with a different outward manner. And actually from a few select episodes we do hear that some others in Starfleet find him arrogant as well, so this isn't necessarily a new thing. The way I see it, if we take him to be a great man (many of us do) then greatness is part of his nature, not merely something he chose as a career path. It's why he couldn't imagine working on Earth on an ocean project. Although him calling that version of himself dreary could be seen as condemning what he thinks of as dreary people, I do think we've seen enough of Picard to know he's not like that. He does respect the little guy doing his part. I personally take it to be more like if someone had suggested to Caesar that maybe he could have just led a simpler life, and him being horrified at that. After all, he was already horrified at how much Alexander had accomplished at a younger age and the impossibility of competing with that. That's just who he was. Maybe that makes him a pompous ass, but then again he's a legend.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 3:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

@ Maq,

One thing about the episode is that it's Picard choosing which him he prefers to be. I don't think the episode is suggesting that we should all avoid being like Lt. Picard. It really is a personal retrospective. This is especially true since in order to become who he is Picard does need to get stabbed and be a general jackass, which I don't think is shown as being admirable. Picard certainly doesn't see it that way, even though going through that did get him where he got. But just as there are many Lt. Picard's in the world, there are also a few Caesars and Alexanders, and I suspect that the message is maybe closer to saying that for each of these types of individual they need to weigh their life against their own unique situation, and not against some standard that should apply to everyone. If anything, Q is pointing out that it's wrong-headed of Picard to take his universal enlightened standards and to apply them too narrowly to an individual human life (in this case, his own). Life is messier than that, and should be. A simplistic statement about being responsible, etc etc, is not a life but just a slogan. So I think it's Picard's lack of self-awareness that is on display more so than any kind of message to the audience of how they should live.

Now I could see one counter-argument, which is that Q does seem to delight in the more colorful elements in Picard's past, so if we take him to be an audience proxy we might to tempted to wonder whether his assessments are to be taken seriously. But I think there's enough baggage in Q's past to take anything he says with a grain of salt, even though on the balance he really does seem to be helping Picard out here.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 3:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Well, I personally thought they were crazy not to just pay Zahn royalties and make the Thrawn trilogy as a film series. But that wouldn't have hit all their committee marketing points, would it. Where they are woefully lost is the idea that to make money you need to pander. No one believes any more that good art can generate its own appeal.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 7:42am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Doctor Bashir, I Presume

@ Booming,

Psychopaths do in fact have empathy, just not reflexive empathy. Meaning they don't mirror your feelings as you feel them. But they are quite capable of empathizing if they imagine or intellectually consider someone's experience. And that, they can choose to do or not.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 1:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Way to Eden

@ benji,

It's interesting you see the ending as Eden not letting them in because they're unworthy. Admittedly this interpretation never occured to me. Knowing TOS and its extreme wariness about so-called paradise, I always assumed the ending meant that Eden wasn't what they thought it was. That is what a poisonous idea in the way they conceived it. The similarity to David Koresh's cult comes to mind, of trying to reach paradise by escaping the world. It's a death wish by another name.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 1:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Doctor Bashir, I Presume

The way he was portrayed, Khan didn't necessarily seem psychopathic. Just ruthless. These can overlap but don't have to. Plus he did seem to have genuine emotions of empathy...selectively perhaps.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 8:23am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Doctor Bashir, I Presume

Jason R, I would say one difference is that ambition of a certain political sort isn't merely to be at the top of a hierarchy of excellence, but specifically (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde) to 'control the lives of other men.' This is, to some people, the greatest thing they can imagine. Controlling your own life, your own career, and your own skill level, is small potatoes compared to the scope and scale of having dominion of those realms *for everyone*. And that really isn't the same as merely wanting to be the best that you can at something. It's not even the same as wanting to be filthy rich and live on the biggest yacht in the world.

That being said I actually still agree with you, and the desire to dominate and control the fate of others is actually not rare. No one knows for sure what goes on in the passing thoughts and hidden fantasies of every person (I believe that we only ever perceive the tip of the iceberg from most people). But I personally suspect that total dominion is not as far from the thoughts of average people as we might suspect. It's not so much that they crave it to the point of obsession, or of actual planning, but it's more of a "oh man, if only I were in charge and could tell people what to do" kind of mentality. So I don't even mean it in the sense of malevolent dominion; and indeed in Wilde's An Ideal Husband this kind of political power is actually painted as the greatest good, unironically. So I could even believe a Khan type person wanting to rule, but actually thinking it's to stop the corrupt idiots from ruining the world.
Next ►Page 1 of 101
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.