So I was reading . . . (Kebir Blue)

And this made me think of Simcountry:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

But let us return: the problem of the other origin of the "good," of the good as conceived by the man of ressentiment, demands its solution.
That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves: "these birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb - would he not be good?" there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say: "we don't dislike them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them: nothing is more tasty than a tender lamb." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals<!-/Quote-!>

It kinda makes me think of words.

That's okay, Barren. They are a bunch of words.

haha

A very interesting book, Justice by Michael Sandel follows the evolution of justice, right, wrong from Aristotle to current thinkers. He's a Harvard prof and you can see his longer lectures on u tube. this is only intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9bOIYnGqbs

Nietzsche makes a good point about immediate gratification and expediency. But humans, even though we don't/can't see all the possible outcomes of our actions can at least look beyond the immediate and ask, what is the best action for myself and others?

I'll be completely honest: I don't see how it's about immediate gratification or expediency, but obviously, the quote is missing a whole lot of context.

Actually, I was referring to the idea of ressentiment, the resentment of the inferior (lambs) toward the superior (birds of prey) precisely because of this superiority and the consequent creation of a morality idealizing the inferior (econ player) and desire that the superior (war player) submit before this ideal. The reaction toward war skill in saying that "attacking other players is wrong" is an act of ressentiment by those players who cannot figure out to attack or defend. Plus, the metaphor of lambs and birds of prey is great.

As far as its connection to SC, think about WGC v MOB. This was an excellent visualization for the contrast between master-slave moralities (I realize the possibility that nobody has read Nietzsche here, but whatever, just killing some time).

Good Scarlet. I've read some of Nietzsche. Nice connection.

Also brings to mind another thinker...Tommy Douglas and his parable of Mouseland. The mice electing the least cat-like cat possible.

Killing time is fun.

thanks for the explanation. makes sense as Nietzsce often does. I remember when our current pastor came to our church we had a staff retreat which i attended. He used the scripture about sheep and wolves saying that sheep were protected by the master while the wolves were represented as bad and the one the master protected them from.

i told him later that i was no sheep and that actually wolves with the alpha male and alpha female were a good model since they took care of their own. i didn't carry the methaphor farther and say that traditionally in organizations there are usually the alphas that run things.

i'm surprised that he didn't fire me but i've had a great relationship with him for the past 12 years and have told him that i'd lay down in the middle of a busy street to protect him and he has shown me on several occasions that he would do the same for me.

just depends on how you spin those metaphors, i guess.

p.s. i don't like sheep.

Durkheim and Webber have already been born and died. Between one time and the other, they left quite a paper trail.

Laguna, that is Greek to me.

they were the fathers of sociology and wrote about the social aspects of religion. but, don't know the significance of the post.

Right now, it seems Laguna has offered a variant of the meme, "X would like to have a word with you" (i.e. A: God is alive. B: Nietzsche would like to have a word with you.) Maybe Laguna is offering these names as an indirect challenge to the quotation or possibly to my explanation of it. If they wrote about religion, it could have relevance . . . only that I have not read anything by either of those authors and Laguna has not deigned to offer an explicit suggestion as to the connection between his statement and this topic.

Wikipedia. Durkheim. Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology. Stress on objective analysis of religion as a social phenomenon.

Webber: basketball player? plant physiologist? Australian Formula One driver?

How about Weber? Max Weber, sociologist. Anti-Marxian economic interpretation of history. Also heavy on the importance of religion in shaping society.

I haven't read anything by them either, but most likely we all have been influenced by them both.

Durkheim and Weber aside...why do we assign superiority to the war player, and inferiority to the econ player?

What I meant was that people have lived after Nietzsche and studied with greater results. Or with better probable results on Weber's - yes, Jojo - case.

Yes, Durkheim did say religion was at the very core a social phenomenon, and despite religion being at the center of all that jazz about good and evil, what really comes about from Durkheim on this matter is the collective consciousness. The greatest evil one can enact is the harm of that collective consciousness, of society itself.

On the eagle vs funny-bunny, Rousseau had already said that in a just society individuals would have to put aside their "natural gifts". Can't remember what he called them, but natural gifts seems right to me. : )

If you are not going on this particular "just" path, one still needs to know and be a very unhappy chipmunk to guard ressentiment towards someone who is better at something else.

I don't post much, because I don't have the time.

@Jojo
Simple: war is the method of direct competition here in simcountry. As a method of comparison, the superior war players against the inferior war players (econ players) exercise decided superiority. Put it another way: the war player need not feel inferior to those he can conquer. This is the reason for the assignments.

@Laguna
Fair enough. Nietzsche does develop something similar to the idea of collective consciousness in his representations of the "herd instinct" and "morality of mores":

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

"How the tradition originated is indifferent; in any case it was without regard for good or evil or any imminent categorical imperative, but above all in order to preserve a community, a people: every superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident involves a tradition that is moral to follow; for detaching oneself from it is dangerous, even more dangerous for the community than for the individual . . ." -- Human, All Too Human<!-/Quote-!>

This is probably a poor quote . . . but I've never been known as a master quoter.

Why is a war player superior to someone who plays econ?

You have played both econ and war and suck at both...

As posted above, the comparison is only relevant in direct competition.

Do I suck? Haha, I know I'm an inexperienced war player, but I thought my main countries represented good profits. On LU, I see my main with 15% less profit (compared to yours) with 33% less population. On GR, I see my main with 47% less profit at 46% less population. Maybe I do suck.

My thinking was along the lines of u keep advising e1 yet find an excuse why someone plays better than u....add the pop and prove me wrong

Hmm, maybe. (Stop exposing my hypocrisy!) My strategy with the low pop is to export population.

LU
+134K
-210K
Diff: 344K
Cash: 611B (@355B per GC, 5 GC per million)
GR
+130K
-529K
Diff: 659K
Cash: 1170B (@355B per GC, 5 GC per million)

Population is an underrated economic consideration. Rather than buy population I grow it. If this consideration (and it is one of my considerations, if nobody else's}, it puts me $200B ahead of you on LU. However, this doesn't put me ahead of you on GR, you still retain an $800B lead.

LOL, case closed

I should try improving my profits though. If I'm completely honest, I know my strategy isn't great.

dude im playin with ya, u do good work helpin others more patience than i

Okay, I'm in for a good argument. Give me something more substantial than this: "War is the method of direct competition here" A strong econ player who wins 1st place every 6 months and whose empire and enterprise earn enough cash to pay for themselves can laugh heartily at that view.

This, now,is textbook circular reasoning: "As a method of comparison, the superior war players ... exercise decided superiority."

And this, "the war player need not feel inferior to those he can conquer", and a good argument for why the war player is superior to the econ player, would constitute a good argument for why the war player is superior to the econ player.

From Scarlets arguement, i feel inferior to no one. not that i ever did.

From my learning of the game it takes one hell of an econ player to be a war player.


If ur not econ to play war, ur swipin a visa usually or blagging it well enough to raid inactives, new war lvls have put an end to all that.