Discussion about this post

User's avatar
tipareth's avatar

This is actually a subject I have put a lot of thought into. The modern, condescending view of kings needs a little debunking. History is written by the victors and it was really aristocratic groups (some of them even foreign in their countries) that benefited from the fall of kings. Often they manipulated the masses into thinking they were fighting for them. Look at communism. My favorite example is Vlad the Impaler. He was loved by his public and ousted by a bunch of shysters in the upper class. All of his evil acts he is famous for were committed on pretty evil people who betrayed him and the common people. Your point of being more affectionate to someone you chose is strong but the social realities outweigh that. While we chose our leaders, the circumstances that make someone even capable of being chosen are out of our hands. This was true of kings as well but a king's success was more intrinsically in league with the happiness of his subjects. An unhappy commoner isn't going to fight for you and there was always competition for land. I'm not suggesting we return to royalty but this is a viewpoint that holds water and I believe we can take something from it.

Expand full comment
Michael Wengler's avatar

We love our abusive parents and spouses.  Dogs love their masters, and they are part of the same society we are part of.  I would expect that all the neocortex morality is WAY newer than the emotional bonds we form, which are most obviously not driven by neocortical moral story telling.  

My neocortex is at odds constantly with my emotional brain.  I want to do stuff that I want to do, and I want to do it for the people I love and am afraid of.  My neocortex is constantly pushing me to be more analytical about what I choose to do, and funnily, a big part of the way it tries to get me to change is by telling me stories which are almost precisely at odds with my emotional truths.  

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts