In this section, expected push backs will be addressed from the aspect of different civilities that conflict with this thesis. While some are worth engaging in (because they are either based on ignorance or a common philosophical litmus test to judge systems by), others must simply be disregarded as axiomatically different or a hyperbolic situation which can make any system fail.
Axiomatic differences are impossible to oppose. At best one can simply point out what the differences are and the resulting repercussions. What is harder is identifying the existence of differing axioms since most see no point in discussing “truth” that civility has embedded so severely that it has been objectified. While irritating, it is understandable that these remnant beliefs will be unquestionable due to the amount of mythos that have encrusted it through practicality. Most often the proposal that all truth is subject to perspective bias is easily dismissed due to “absurdism”.
When rules – inherently constructed to empower a community – are presented as unbiased and foundational, it is expected that the community will internalize those rules. The more it could harm others, the more civility will attempt to objectify them to ensure there is no doubt of their inalienability. For this reason, there will always be a desire for many to take a practical stance on objective virtues – appealing to authorities to supply them through unquestionable divine providence so any harm that comes will not be their own fault but – instead – that of the “just” system. If the virtues are inconsistent (which is often the case with reactionary morality), that inconsistency needs to be pointed out, and hopefully an appeal to logic will be enough to sow doubt. If not, the best one can do is to determine where the values disagree with the 8 points of relative normality to see where there is any contradiction with “normality being normal”. In the end, this can only be used to appeal to an open minded audience since one will rarely question their own “truth”.
Unlike differences of morality, believing that civility or tradition should be promoted for its own sake cannot be reflected against morals since it is independent of them. The appeal to culture – be it the ambiguous and situational “will of the people” or the promotion of those that “deserve it” – is a valid interpretation of how legacy analysis can stabilize (albeit, not one that leads to a “free” society – as shown above). If a person chooses to prioritize perception bias over empathy, they have been convinced that legacy should only be achieved through dictation (instead of being preserved through cooperation). This immediate critique of radical civility and disregard of constructed consent unfortunately cannot be refuted except to appeal to the tautology “normality ought be normal”. It can also be shown to be practically flawed by questioning if the “will of the people” might desire self optimization over dictation.
Radical Civility has an underlying theme of rejecting the autonomy of the individual. If the decisions we make are the result of cultural legacies that are forcing themselves onto us, it cannot be known which of our choices (if any) have been formulated by our independent character. This will rub many the wrong way.
While ultimately unknowable until we have the ability to revisit past events, many will hold on to the hope of free will for multiple different reasons. Whether it be a “need to blame” that comes with the responsibility of mistakes or simply a “pride of success”, many have an existential dependence for legacy preservation to be a construction of which they or others must take ownership. It is interesting in these cases to see if they disagree with the concept of determinism within self preservation (can they question their own desire to persist) and what insinuation that observation offers regarding the more general justification of agency. Once that is introduced, extending that concept to immortality via legacy will result in the conclusion that “free will” is at best ambiguous.
Similar to free will, the need to believe that individual success and failure is deserved has no practical difference from the desire to reject normality within the broader population. Whether it be the need for having an internal self worth or a desire to feel superior to others’ failings, individualism is a defense of personal empowerment at the expense of others. As such, that false relative empowerment needs to be pointed out. No action is a singularity, but – instead – part of a system. The claim that personal actions will have overbearing influence beyond all others is as misguided as the belief that a drop of water will cause a flood. Just as any single action has influence and can be a point of failure, all of them are. Once this is accepted, suggesting that promotion can be deserved for some but not others becomes invalid.
While a solid attempt at establishing a primitive form of cultural expectations, the source of these human rights (the things that we deserve) are granted directly by a supernatural source, typically imbued by a Divine that is not empirically knowable. It is therefore suspicious – to say the least – when this claim originates from positions of comfort (as it almost always does). It has already been shown that preservation of comfort will drive people to justify their comfort using mythoi, so to claim that this belief is essential seems to lack self awareness. It becomes a bit more transparent when the argument is rephrased as “other’s rights end where my nose begins” (a common mantra for individualist freedom). This is a rejection that normality is a reflection of what a community can be and instead claims pre-determined baselines are necessary to establish what people deserve (regardless if it is achievable for everyone). If this is believed dogmatically, then all failings of others to achieve the dictated baseline will be justified through imagined plights or sins. It may be possible to show that these sins don’t (and shouldn’t) result in loss of rights or – alternatively – one could show that in a “sinless world” these graces of the Divine would still be the same as they are now: unequal. Fundamentally it contradicts the absolutism of the statement “normality should be normal”.
The logic is unlikely to land on those that use this argument since this mythos is reactionary: it is a defence of current comfort instead of a direct critique on radical civility. So even if the claim of “human rights” is refuted, they would still believe their comfort is essentially deserved.
The desire to believe that group consciousness will lead a group astray more often than one with direction is rooted in the concept of individual intelligence and rationality. If it is accepted that a collective is more analytical than a person, then much of the mythos behind the futuristic entrepreneur or the spontaneous genius driving progress would be undermined. When the issue of mob mentality is raised, it is important to show that optimization is not the same as universalization in legacy preservation so harmful civilities are rightfully rejected. Trust is put into the “mob” because no individual or group can account for the needs of everyone. It is therefore up to the rejected civility to either adapt to radical civility or establish a critique of an underlying civil legacy that people can empathize with; building radicality. Since all legacies can optimally coexist within radical civility, it is claimed – via legacy analysis – that non-exclusive civilities will be accepted to further objectify the community’s metaphysical resources. So mob mentality is not actually a critique of radical civility, but an argument for it: mobs that abandon constructed consent but act on the behest of civil dictations will cause harm.
In truth, this critique is primarily used by the comfortable to ensure that their own civility will continue to be respected in spite of it being known to harm the rest of the community. With this in mind, the population being considered must remain stagnant (as opposed to being reduced to an ambiguous “them”) and the appeal must always be made to increasing normality (as defined by radical civility) for that set of people despite expectations of any single individual.
There can be a rejection of legacy analysis based on a perception of how reality is structured. In other words, if someone has a fundamentally different belief about the metaphysical atoms of the universe, then legacies themselves could be dismissed. As with differing axioms, asserting the following foundations cannot be addressed directly since they fundamentally reject the language being used.
If materialism is the driving force behind everything, then consciousness, philosophy, ideology and legacy are simply “sound and fury” not worth discussing. Even someone offering this critique is fundamentally contradicting their own assertion since the understanding of words will be relatively meaningless.
Unless a person is willing to argue “free will” or “objective virtues”, using a belief in a higher power as a critique is a distraction. While religion is an institution that necessitates both a civility and a mythos, the underlying critique will ultimately reference something else. Religion – as with any other civility – only contrasts radical civility if it is exclusive which is not a defining quality.
While success is culturally determined, the historical mythoi surrounding power is hard to ignore. It will likely always be appealed to in some form or another, and conservatives – by definition – will always revert to it given the chance.
The appeal to power or success is an illusion of civility meant to focus on the few to the detriment of the many. Money, ownership, and deservedness are metaphysical addictions that are indistinguishable from reality itself for those that have grown up under their propaganda. Material dependency (especially those of absolute essentials) shouldn’t be neglected, but influence should not be restricted to that consideration. The civilities and mythologies we allow to limit our realities will always be the ideological entrapments we find ourselves in. As such, critical thinking and appreciation of outside influences should be promoted within the broader population so they can decide on the most optimal method for community empowerment.
A person can only know what is in the scope of their perception. Therefore, every form of analysis ought to be considered incomplete. It is important to recognize that all sound theories will be representing the same reality so – even if contrasting them draws focus to different conclusions and gaps are identified – they ought not contradict. With each additional system employed, a more clear prediction of an unaltered future can be determined along with identifying what – if any – actions are necessary for optimization of a metric.
Under a Marxian framework of a materially driven culture, much of history can be justified and similar situations can be expected to reproduce. Although, there is the flaw of both projecting legacy and assuming a civility that cannot transfer to different communities. Both inferences will drive predictions to be more erroneous the further removed from the current outlook (assuming the right material focus was being considered to begin with). In short, as a way of being self fulfilling, material analysis will further institute civilities that the analysis will depend on (a possible example is “a need for material scarcity”) if exclusively applied.
The dependence on the economy to preserve comfort has generated a need for constant competition. This aligns with historical power structures and the methods employed to keep community consciousness subdued. While many will argue that the purchase of products is – at a fundamental level – the natural way of life and has been adapting through the ages to become the promotive system we have today, it is important to reflect on what relations that directly has to the axioms of life initially declared: none.
Within the fiction of a false material hierarchy, consumerism can be used as an anti-analysis to see what should be avoided. From institutionalizing comfort in spite of others suffering to the markets necessary for institutionalizing the economic mythos, all the monetary civil structures designed around disallowing normality can be identified. It can’t be denied that the system is soundly beneficial while distribution is deemed “untraditional”, the dependency of this analysis (as with material analysis above) depends on that which it critiques: in this case “fair exchange”. Therefore exclusively utilizing this contrast will also hinder the success of radical civility due to its need for fiscal dependency.
The utility monster is a philosophical stress test to ensure that the worst representatives of a population will not break an economic system. While it is simultaneously reductive and enlightening, it also assumes that motivations for some people cannot be empathized with. For this reason using it as a critique – instead of simply a theoretical inquiry – is harmful for both the understanding of people and the viability of a system. That said, these topics will come up so they are worth addressing.
Mental health in general is an experience that is easy to vilify because it is inherently unknowable to those that don’t witness or experience it. For this reason, using any form (especially those seen as dangerous to society) can be used as a boogeyman against egalitarianism. While neurodiversity is a challenge when establishing normality, so is every other social irregularity that a person is unfamiliar with. Biological differences are in this sense an excuse for not broadening the conversation to include such people and thus is a fundamental rejection of radical civility itself. In truth, neurodiversity – as with every other biologic difference – is best understood by accepting that it is exceptional to be completely “status quo” and these “outliers” ought to be treated as any group: with cooperation on their own terms to identify overlapping legacies.
While “fascism” is typically a vague reference to “the harmful other”, within the realm of legacy analysis it will strictly mean “those that cannot work with others unless it promotes their individual legacy”. The use of “legacy” here is vital, because it is not a discussion about what is civil, but specifically a rejection of the independence of others unless they have assimilated to the fascist’s motivation. In their minds, this will always mean two things: the other (those that cannot promote their legacy) are harmful and – unfortunately – they will always be radically critical unless they have power (and then it is too late).
Now that the discussion has been established, the critique it brings is thus: “radical civility will fundamentally undermine the typical defense against fascism: a strong civil foundation.” While fascism would heavily utilize the second axiom of life (perception bias), the critique neglects the first (preservation of legacy). To believe that a strong constructed consent will be manipulated to promote a hyper exclusive civility (even if it has the appearance of being justified) is to claim that individuals will find further promotion within a small community than a large one. Therefore the critique can be refined to: “specific metaphysical objectivity is more practical than the civil coverage.” While this is a difficult claim to refute since it is yet untested, it falls out from legacy analysis that the legacies incorporated in that civility will eventually be distorted to assimilate to the fascist legacy. Therefore the promotion of individual legacy for the fascist sympothizer will, optimistically, suffer the damnation of being conflated into an anti-fascist civil defense when it eventually fails or, pessimistically, be disregarded entirely within radical civility.
Of course this is just a reason not to join any fascist civility, but the harm they might do is still a concern. For this it must be realized that radical civility (the institutionalization of promoting radical critiques) can be – and must be – objective. The only way that fascism is a threat is if its own civility can dominate others by either being more objective or partitioning the society. As shown in this thesis, promoting radicality will fundamentally render all civilities impotent and unify society. Therefore, under legacy analysis, radical civility is ironically the greatest method to combat the implementation and success of fascism.
Everyone is hypocritical to some degree. For this reason people ought not be critiqued, only situations ought to be, and we should all try to be more loyal to the consistency of our values (preferably radical civility via relative normality).