NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, thats right. For all those fmailiar with Hume, we should know about the idea of the master and the slave, the dominant and the submissive.

He begins by saying that the master is the man of the house, the lord of his manor. He controls all of his property and oversees everything he can. If this man should so control the lives of people, than he is doubly the master. The man can and should exercise his dominance and let the others know he is in control.

But let us examine this for a moment as Hume does. If we take away the slaves, then what is the master? After all, the master was only the master because the slave showed deference to him. What if one day, all the slaves got up and left and became their own people? Where would the master be? Because, without his control over people, is he a master of the people anymore?

Hume's answer - No. The master controls the slaves but also relies on their deference to him as master in order to keep the so called 'chain of command'.

The slave is dependent on the master for safety who is dependent on the slave for control. No true power in the system at all.


Thoughts?

Confusing :p

Master And Slave


No pennies from heaven, no pennies in my hand
Think your drinkin' wine dad it's blood of the lamb
That's no way to treat your son now is it Abraham
After he busted his ass for you
You've never known hunger, never took a risk
Through you know you should, you know you'd never
Raise a fist
If the boss asked you to jump you know
You'd find the nearest cliff
That man talks down to you
And you talk down to me too now

Master and Slave in equal parts
split down the middle drinkin' doubles at the bar
Master and Slave God bless you both
I got two for the price of one
(Such a deal for your only son)

When will this tension be all over
For fallen sons and fathers too
I'm down to my last dime
No faith in mankind
C'mon let's swing into the groove...

Like Jack Horner backed up in a corner
But I never saw a slice of no pie
Too busy standin' in line
Just waitin' for bread
But the father he walks the water
He ain't never tossed a nickel to his son
Ain't I your prodigal boy?
Ain't I your pride and joy?

Friends and Romans I'm your brother
I'm scratchin' to hang on
The pursuit of happiness is just a carpetbaggers con
When a can of pork and beans could change my attitude
You won't give it up but I coulda been you
While the masters and slaves scratch
For pieces of the dream
For purple mountain majesties
Whatever the hell that means

They give up on each other
And that's the way they get ahead
But I can still see the stars
Through these red, white, and blue prison bars

...
I got two for the price of one
(Such a deal for your only son)

So...I haven't read Hume. Obviously. And I wouldn't presume to substitute song lyrics for insight, but I dig that song and how often was I really going to get to post those lyrics...

Anyway-I have read Burroughs. While he doesn't so much deal with master/slave relationships in those terms or even that binary. He deals with it as aspects of 'control.' That control is 'controled by its need to control,' and that it is a matter of a loop, a need that is itself-so it would be impossible to remove the slave from the equation because the master is a slave to his need to control.

Haha, got song lyrics and an on topic post. I'm on fire...

Does it explain the relationship between the soldier that a dictator hires and a normal citizen that the soldier decides to subjugate. Let's say the soldier tells the citizen to move a pile of bricks from one side of a parking lot to the other. The citizen could laugh and walk away, but then he'd get shot int he back. If he does do the work the soldiers will laugh heartily and walk away, leaving the citizen bewildered but unharmed.

That would be a master-slave relationship where the master has, at least at first glance, real power over the slave. Does your model only work if the master has no enforcement power? Or is the death of a slave no different then the slave walking away in that the master can no longer make the slave do work?

Maybe I'm missing the point. Let me try this a different way. The master offers the slave safety. If the slave does not accept the masters offer, the master will make sure that the slave is no longer safe. If the slave accepts then the master has and can in the future exert a compelling force on the slave. Is this not power? Let's say that some time later the slave decides to up and leave. The master kills the slave for this. The master no longer has power over the slave since the slave is dead, but this does not change the fact that the master had power over the slave up til he killed the slave. Perhaps the master can ultimately have power only if the slave allows him to, but if the slave allows him to then the master still has power. Is it only power if it lasts eternally? If so, you could simply say that the slave or the master will eventually die if you wanted to prove that there is no such thing as power. What would the word for a compelling force that does not last eternally be?

Does it explain the relationship between the soldier that a dictator hires and a normal citizen that the soldier decides to subjugate. Let's say the soldier tells the citizen to move a pile of bricks from one side of a parking lot to the other. The citizen could laugh and walk away, but then he'd get shot int he back. If he does do the work the soldiers will laugh heartily and walk away, leaving the citizen bewildered but unharmed.

That would be a master-slave relationship where the master has, at least at first glance, real power over the slave. Does your model only work if the master has no enforcement power? Or is the death of a slave no different then the slave walking away in that the master can no longer make the slave do work?

Maybe I'm missing the point. Let me try this a different way. The master offers the slave safety. If the slave does not accept the masters offer, the master will make sure that the slave is no longer safe. If the slave accepts then the master has and can in the future exert a compelling force on the slave. Is this not power? Let's say that some time later the slave decides to up and leave. The master kills the slave for this. The master no longer has power over the slave since the slave is dead, but this does not change the fact that the master had power over the slave up til he killed the slave. Perhaps the master can ultimately have power only if the slave allows him to, but if the slave allows him to then the master still has power. Is it only power if it lasts eternally? If so, you could simply say that the slave or the master will eventually die if you wanted to prove that there is no such thing as power. What would the word for a compelling force that does not last eternally be?


You've got this first part of the circle right. But you missed the second part. I'll run with you third example up there. So the master offers the slave safety, the slave rejects it, the master makes it unsafe for the slave. The slave comes back and accepts the safety offer. One day, the slave up and leaves. The master kills him. (this is where you ended). As a result, the master no longer had the power to command anything, no longer making him a master. With the slave, the master had the power to hold in command a body. Without the slave, all the master has is himself, of which he is subject to his bodies demands and therefore, not a true master over even his own body.

The masters power in enslaved to the very presence of a slave.

I had two ideas in my mind for what this thread might be about, and neither was even remotely correct....

He begins by saying that the master is the man of the house, the lord of his manor. He controls all of his property and oversees everything he can. If this man should so control the lives of people, than he is doubly the master. The man can and should exercise his dominance and let the others know he is in control.

But let us examine this for a moment as Hume does. If we take away the slaves, then what is the master? After all, the master was only the master because the slave showed deference to him. What if one day, all the slaves got up and left and became their own people? Where would the master be? Because, without his control over people, is he a master of the people anymore?

Hume's answer - No. The master controls the slaves but also relies on their deference to him as master in order to keep the so called 'chain of command'.




Hume seems like Plato in that he is merely diving into his own naval lint and expecting his reader to follow without thinking. Can't really blame him since from Plato's time to the present day it's a rare philosopher who ever does anything else. But if you have summed this up correctly then even in Hume's own terms this is utter tripe. If we are to define the master as "the man of the house" then taking away his slaves alters nothing because the house still exists, ne? :P

All in all, I'd say we're better off spending our time with real philosophers such as Aristotle, Mack the Knife, Locke or Hobbes. If Hume can't stay on track even within his own terms then I doubt he's any good. ^_~

You've got this first part of the circle right. But you missed the second part. I'll run with you third example up there. So the master offers the slave safety, the slave rejects it, the master makes it unsafe for the slave. The slave comes back and accepts the safety offer. One day, the slave up and leaves. The master kills him. (this is where you ended). As a result, the master no longer had the power to command anything, no longer making him a master. With the slave, the master had the power to hold in command a body. Without the slave, all the master has is himself, of which he is subject to his bodies demands and therefore, not a true master over even his own body.

The masters power in enslaved to the very presence of a slave.

I understand what you're saying now. It's not about an absence or presence of power. The relationship simply explains what is required for there to be a 'state of power'. A 'state of power' would fit the same criteria as a symbiotic relationship in reality. This is supposed to put things in perspective.

Hume seems like Plato in that he is merely diving into his own naval lint and expecting his reader to follow without thinking.

I love that analogy. :)

Hegel's 'Master Slave Dialectic' explains that phenomenon quite well Blargistania. He claims that over time, the Slave's existence will become more real than the masters existence as the Master is divorced from the reality of work and toil. As a result the slave will attain power and become, in turn, the master.

Naturally i havent explained this nearly as well as Hegel.

You put the case right... but have the conclusion wrong.

The point is not that there is no power; the point is that there is no freedom -- for anyone -- while slavery lasts.

Hegel's 'Master Slave Dialectic' explains that phenomenon quite well Blargistania. He claims that over time, the Slave's existence will become more real than the masters existence as the Master is divorced from the reality of work and toil. As a result the slave will attain power and become, in turn, the master.

Naturally i havent explained this nearly as well as Hegel.

No, that was a pretty good explanation of the master-slave dialectic: the slave works within and upon the world and so remakes it, while the master does not and so eventually fails (and, indeed falls).

Yes, thats right. For all those fmailiar with Hume, we should know about the idea of the master and the slave, the dominant and the submissive.

He begins by saying that the master is the man of the house, the lord of his manor. He controls all of his property and oversees everything he can. If this man should so control the lives of people, than he is doubly the master. The man can and should exercise his dominance and let the others know he is in control.

But let us examine this for a moment as Hume does. If we take away the slaves, then what is the master? After all, the master was only the master because the slave showed deference to him. What if one day, all the slaves got up and left and became their own people? Where would the master be? Because, without his control over people, is he a master of the people anymore?

Hume's answer - No. The master controls the slaves but also relies on their deference to him as master in order to keep the so called 'chain of command'.

The slave is dependent on the master for safety who is dependent on the slave for control. No true power in the system at all.


Thoughts?

Your new name is One-of-Hume! All hail One-of-Hume!

I very much doubt that any 17-1800 black man in the U.S. would put it so succinctly as Hume. You're right. A master cannot be the master without the slave. But Hume leaves no room for that control the master actually has. Look at the book 1984. There are some things that people just cannot tolerate. A man can be broken, granted, of his own free will, if you see it that way. But the master generally does have more control over the situation. Friends and allies to maintain his slave. He may be slave to his need to enslave, but the slave cannot always refuse to be a slave. I agree, it's just pompous belly lint diving.

But the master generally does have more control over the situation. Friends and allies to maintain his slave. He may be slave to his need to enslave, but the slave cannot always refuse to be a slave. I agree, it's just pompous belly lint diving.

You haven't looked at Nietzsche's version of the slave revolt, have you? The inversion of the 'moral' system which Judaeo-Christianity introduced to subvert the values of the masters? Prior to the revolt it was a case of man being judged on the basis of whether he was good or bad at doing things - at exercising his will in the world, whereas post-revolt these judgements were replaced with a Good or Evil judgement. The Judaeo-Christian system praised all the values that crippled mankind and kept individuals a part of the herd - meekness, charity, patience, forgiveness and all the qualities so eloquently espoused in the beatitudes. The revolt of the slaves is not always a case of refusing to be a slave, instead, as Nietzsche pointed out, it can be a re-evaluation of values so that the position of the slaves is viewed as the blessed position.

No, that was a pretty good explanation of the master-slave dialectic: the slave works within and upon the world and so remakes it, while the master does not and so eventually fails (and, indeed falls).

Yes, but how often is the master simply replaced with a new master, rather than the slave rising in status? One glance at history tells us that masters tend to replace masters, rising from the bottom occurs only rarely.

Perhaps we could say more simply that those at the top tend to lose their ability to understand the reality of those who support them. This leads to weakness, and they become unfit for ruling.

Yes, but how often is the master simply replaced with a new master, rather than the slave rising in status? One glance at history tells us that masters tend to replace masters, rising from the bottom occurs only rarely.

Perhaps we could say more simply that those at the top tend to lose their ability to understand the reality of those who support them. This leads to weakness, and they become unfit for ruling.

I didn't really qualify what I meant by the master failing too well, did I? I guess not: failing at being human by failing to work upon the world and so failing to participate actively in the historical dialectic. The position of the master easily falls into a routine of attempting to maintain the status quo, and therefore by default allows a new moral/physical system to be synthesised between the old ideology that they support and the new one which is in reaction to it and produced by the slaves. Progress within the Hegelian dialectic is instigated by the slaves, not the masters in most cases (although, obviously, neither of them individually are right until they are judged by the new synthesis that they create).

Hmm. Hegel. Not the easiest person to discuss without wanting to head off into caveats and digressions.

Perhaps we could say more simply that those at the top tend to lose their ability to understand the reality of those who support them. This leads to weakness, and they become unfit for ruling.

Not so much a failure to understand the slaves, but more a failure to understand the new world which they are creating through their labour.

Maybe I am completly missing the point, but this first line:

Yes, thats right. For all those fmailiar with Hume, we should know about the idea of the master and the slave, the dominant and the submissive.

Leads me to believe that you are not talking about actual slavery (as in the early Americas), but instead the relationship between a subordinate who chooses to give her/himself so completly to a Dominate, that h/he actually becomes owned (or property). This relationship is actually one built on trust and in many cases, this slavery leads to freedom (Something you cannot understand unless you have experienced it).

I am probably missing the point because the rest of the first post has nothing to do with this.

Well I probably didn't understand the post either, but I agree that it is codepence between the master and the slaves. That the maste is dependent on the slaves to keep his position and his priviliege, but there the master useally have the power to change the position and want to percive. There the master use diffrent method to control the people like for example the bread and amusent trick like for example in romanempire, brutall force like for example north corea, make the people like and respect the headboss but dislike and blame the middlemen for the position or make people have democracy but controll the media through capitalist ownership and force people to work in the capitalistic factories or starve to death there it is in most cases is a combination. So even if it is a codependence the master useally have the best cards and can controll the situation. In many cases the slave can only revolt if people on higher levels support the revolution or he think that death or other brutally punishment is better than the existing situation.

But if you instead talks about free will slavery there it will be a more equal codepence and the slave can actuall be in controll of the situation.

was hume into bdsm or what? where does this mysterious voluntary slave/submissive come from?