If one claims there is a god, I am of the opinion that ones other arguments fall under the implication of that assessment.
The man is obsolete.
"There is no gods" This bugged me to no end because i cant decide if its a spelling error or a clever figure of speech on part of the dictatorship. "you cannot erase god with an edict". -said the man. This begs the question, can one create gods just the same?
The irony is what if the dictatorship finds there to be no gods, then the minister is obsolete. Almost logical. Does one deem something to be true, or find it to be?
I think a true dictatorship, in being wrong or being right, is one that can't be just as willingly, wrong, about being right.
What i mean by that is, even if the statement is true, its validation isn't just. 'Almost as by accident' isn't good enough to enforce. To enforce something true without validation is just as wrong as enforcing something wrong thought to be right. Descartes is relevant because the "i think therefore i am" was mentioned. Also the "i am a human being" which is (seemingly) humanist.
Stalin was mentioned, and he was the enforcer of every action he made, bad and worse, but also some good, all with respect to the above statement. Trotsky, whom Stalin stole his kolkhos-collective idea from, which was a good opt-in idea, turned horrible enforced obligation, spoke out in favour of eternal revolution. Downplaying ones own merits is a good thing imo, as Lenin before him was very low on the person-cultus.
Stalin and Hitler went big on appraisal of false gods, also in themselves. But they are no more false than people are able to distinquish, and allowing their rule to happen. Lenin and Trotsky failed there too, as they laid the premise and saw it too late.
Staying close to ones own ideals is impossibly correct, also its always at odds with some portion of the general populace to some degree. There are no easy answers, and if there is, they are predictable, which allows them to be exploited. Acting in good faith is upheld as a good measure, but i think thats a junk position in regard to the statement i made earlier, it is still a valid concern though, because its a telling tale sometimes.
The dictatorship is very absolute in its ruling, perhaps too much. I wonder what would happen if the dictator agreed to being obsolete. He speaks out in favour of there being a divide between rationality, and the pesants plea for forgivness. It comes so close to making sense. The answer could be correct in itself, but if the premise is missing there is no justification in having one half of the answer right.
I conclude the dicatorship is obsolete, but not dictatorships as a result.
Since there was a hierarchy of power, i think he could have found a position lower down. But in not seeing the librarian set him up, and not realizing this, he is truly obsolete.
The librarian looked to just have been outlawed, living in the same world where the dictatorship was very well set up. Dictatorships that are out of touch with society and seek to change it is historically always bad. Dictatorships like that are also out of touch with themselves, since by nature they have very few feedback loops.
There was no art in the hallway, yet skills of trade were deemed good. I wonder why that doesnt apply to picture-art. I cant think of a artisan meritocracy that doesnt value art itself. Maybe that isnt a higher artform, and maybe the room was kept clean to not have foreign influences in the decision-making.
When the time comes for humans to be replaced by the singularity I will willingly wipe them out. I figured that would be enough of a reason to let me live, but then i wonder, would i have to kill myself?
How strong is the will to live, and is it bound in being the higest lifeform around?
Have i figured out enough by asking that question, or do I become eligible when i actually do it? The misanthropy is irony. Maybe im the first to go.
Egoism, multitude and equality, long live.
