Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese ideal of strong attachments to family and clan structures with the concept of "impartial caring" or "universal love" (兼愛, jiān ài). He argued directly against Confucians, who had philosophized that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees.
Overlooked by those critics, however, was a passage in the chapter on "Self-Cultivation" which stated, "When people near-by are not befriended, there is no use endeavoring to attract those at a distance."[11] This point was also precisely articulated by a Mohist in a debate with Mencius (in the Mengzi), where the Mohist argued, in relation to carrying out universal love, that "we begin with what is near." …. Mozi also differentiated between "intention" and "actuality", thereby placing a central importance on the will to love, even though in practice it might very well be impossible to bring benefit to everyone.
Sure, fair enough, (even potentially well translated) 2000 year old Chinese definitely leaves room for interpretation. I’ll mix its words, (your words), and [my words] to show how I think your issues are already addressed, when these views are properly [imo obviously] understood - i don’t believe these views teach the “suicidal altruism” that some nefarious entities like to portray them as teaching, a delusion which many well-intentioned seekers can easily fall into, given the level of control that these nefarious entities have over the flow of information we [speaking generally] consume
"When people near-by (natural communities) are not befriended, there is no use [because you’ll end up with a “melting pot”] endeavoring to attract those at a distance ."
The nearest person is obviously yourself. If one truly loves themselves, that alone addresses a large part of the way the delusion of the melting pot is foisted upon us. The people in the west have been taught to loathe themselves for multiple generations now. [i.e. the endlessly regurgitated narratives of colonialism, slavery, racism, etc]. Like I say, addressing that alone addresses a large portion of the problem
The next nearest to ourselves is our immediate family and kin - obviously, or atleast “naturally”, homogenous with ourselves. When one truly loves their family and kin, again, I see that address another large portion of “the problem”. We know the statistical realities of inter-racial relationships, and we have known for centuries. It takes active effort to try to make us forget. However, free will is the central foundation, and as such, I don’t know if “just make it illegal” is the solution. I lean towards something like, “shut down promotion of it, educate on the realities of it, but don’t attempt to enforce tyranny. As the first paragraph of the wiki i quoted lays out:
Mozi's moral teachings emphasized introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity, rather than obedience to rituals. He observed that people often learned about the world through adversity.[7] By reflecting on one's own successes and failures, one attains true self-knowledge rather than mere conformity to ritual.
Which I think pretty much speaks for itself here, and what im trying to express above
Next we have the wider community, perhaps called “the nation” at one point in time but with centuries of dilution very few “natural” nations (as one here might define), exist anymore. But if one truly loves their people, their “nation”, I believe the rest of the problem is addressed. With this framework in mind, the core of the nation is always building and getting stronger, and the far fringes are where experimentation happens, as has been the case throughout all of human history it seems (aka what appears to be “natural”)
If any of that makes sense, you might find an earlier post of mine interesting, which I believe speaks more to this issue of suicidal empathy and how that differs from The Way (or in the words of the short story, “unreasonable grace”). Though it’s quite long so I’ll just link it instead of trying to fit it in this already becoming unwieldy reply:
Yeah, I read that, so basically it isn't even internally self-consistent.
Clearly, the people nearby should be befriended first and if there is a conflict the people nearby take priority. There is a hierarchy of who to care about.
So how do you square that with the idea of loving everyone equally? You still slaughter them and despoil their lands but, what, feel bad about it later?
Hard pass
u/redkrab also (responding to both comments here)
can you give me your interpretation of it?
Sure, fair enough, (even potentially well translated) 2000 year old Chinese definitely leaves room for interpretation. I’ll mix its words, (your words), and [my words] to show how I think your issues are already addressed, when these views are properly [imo obviously] understood - i don’t believe these views teach the “suicidal altruism” that some nefarious entities like to portray them as teaching, a delusion which many well-intentioned seekers can easily fall into, given the level of control that these nefarious entities have over the flow of information we [speaking generally] consume
The nearest person is obviously yourself. If one truly loves themselves, that alone addresses a large part of the way the delusion of the melting pot is foisted upon us. The people in the west have been taught to loathe themselves for multiple generations now. [i.e. the endlessly regurgitated narratives of colonialism, slavery, racism, etc]. Like I say, addressing that alone addresses a large portion of the problem
The next nearest to ourselves is our immediate family and kin - obviously, or atleast “naturally”, homogenous with ourselves. When one truly loves their family and kin, again, I see that address another large portion of “the problem”. We know the statistical realities of inter-racial relationships, and we have known for centuries. It takes active effort to try to make us forget. However, free will is the central foundation, and as such, I don’t know if “just make it illegal” is the solution. I lean towards something like, “shut down promotion of it, educate on the realities of it, but don’t attempt to enforce tyranny. As the first paragraph of the wiki i quoted lays out:
Which I think pretty much speaks for itself here, and what im trying to express above
Next we have the wider community, perhaps called “the nation” at one point in time but with centuries of dilution very few “natural” nations (as one here might define), exist anymore. But if one truly loves their people, their “nation”, I believe the rest of the problem is addressed. With this framework in mind, the core of the nation is always building and getting stronger, and the far fringes are where experimentation happens, as has been the case throughout all of human history it seems (aka what appears to be “natural”)
If any of that makes sense, you might find an earlier post of mine interesting, which I believe speaks more to this issue of suicidal empathy and how that differs from The Way (or in the words of the short story, “unreasonable grace”). Though it’s quite long so I’ll just link it instead of trying to fit it in this already becoming unwieldy reply:
https://communities.win/c/ChristianAnarchism/p/1AR0GimkmR/unreasonable-grace-and-the-dilem/c
Edit) un-autocorrected a couple autocorrects
Yeah, I read that, so basically it isn't even internally self-consistent.
Clearly, the people nearby should be befriended first and if there is a conflict the people nearby take priority. There is a hierarchy of who to care about.
So how do you square that with the idea of loving everyone equally? You still slaughter them and despoil their lands but, what, feel bad about it later?
Did you read my response to krab’s similar followup?
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0Mea4A/the-jews-committed-genocide-agai/c/4eXtiGi58jQ