Is Social Order Important?
Posted: February 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm
This is my second attempt to discuss something I think is very important and I hope my form is improved. I am curious about how philosophical people think about the difference of the New World Order and the old world order. Part of my curiosity comes out the fact that philosophy has been a strictly male domain until just recently and I think there might be something missing in the fully male perspective. Like the importance of females in human societies.
Eisenhower's term for the New World Order is Military Industrial Complex. As we can see, this is a society with full employment of men and women and merit hiring that has nothing to do with family relationships.
The old world order was very much about family order. The class divisions of Europe and the occupations men could follow were very much about the family a person was born into. I am unaware of any significant difference between India's caste system and Europe's class system, except Europe became modernized sooner than India.
Those born into the upper classes having the most personal power, and more of this personal power than is held by individuals in the New World Order. There is less personal power in the New World Order because most things are controlled by policies, not individuals in the New World Order. Also, rarely did women hold power in the old world order, in contrast to the New World Order where gender is considered unimportant and hiring is a matter of merit.
In the old world order traditional women did not hold much power and were certainly denied political power, but they held a very important position in the family order of things and society as a whole. Their feminine role had a very significant social impact, that might be changing in the New World Order? Is this change best for humanity or could there be some human problems emerging from the change in how we order ourselves? Is socialism feminism, or will such concerns die when we get further from family values and more into economic values? Since Rome military men have taken care of their own but is this the same as assuring all children, disabled and the elderly get education, nutrition, and medical care?
Any thoughts about those comments?
Eisenhower's term for the New World Order is Military Industrial Complex. As we can see, this is a society with full employment of men and women and merit hiring that has nothing to do with family relationships.
The old world order was very much about family order. The class divisions of Europe and the occupations men could follow were very much about the family a person was born into. I am unaware of any significant difference between India's caste system and Europe's class system, except Europe became modernized sooner than India.
Those born into the upper classes having the most personal power, and more of this personal power than is held by individuals in the New World Order. There is less personal power in the New World Order because most things are controlled by policies, not individuals in the New World Order. Also, rarely did women hold power in the old world order, in contrast to the New World Order where gender is considered unimportant and hiring is a matter of merit.
In the old world order traditional women did not hold much power and were certainly denied political power, but they held a very important position in the family order of things and society as a whole. Their feminine role had a very significant social impact, that might be changing in the New World Order? Is this change best for humanity or could there be some human problems emerging from the change in how we order ourselves? Is socialism feminism, or will such concerns die when we get further from family values and more into economic values? Since Rome military men have taken care of their own but is this the same as assuring all children, disabled and the elderly get education, nutrition, and medical care?
Any thoughts about those comments?