Is “privilege” like Original Sin?

Imteresting.  The ‘Priviledged Subject’ is a motif that indeed has been a logical fault for some time. It goes: How can yoy know this. And,  everyone has equal access. Its been like something you cannot assert; every argument must be accessable to everyone in potential (Of education, effort, etc…)

But im more inclined for 2 route if meaning that cannot be traversed. ( more on that later)


I direct your attention to a short piece on Allthink by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian: “Privilege: The Left’s Original Sin“.  Their thesis is cute, and makes some sense: the Authoritarian Left’s notion of “privilege”, which establishes a hierarchy of victimhood, is analogous to religion’s Original Sin. You can read it in 5 minutes, but […]

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher musician that is being questioned.

4 thoughts on “Is “privilege” like Original Sin?”

  1. Yes, “Privilege” is like “Original Sin” from limited perspective of Original Sin being something like fate, beyond one’s control, birth right, etc. Joy Degruy is a masterful presenter of Privilege, and is capable of convincing most morally thinking Privileged that they are indeed guilty of the sin of Privilege:

    As for the real (speculative) definition of Original Sin not in scope here, one might need to begin by thinking about the worst possible things one can think of. Also one might reconsider the meaning of ancient and modern myth, ritual, totemism and taboo. One might then either have a horror response, or no response (pathological), or arousal response (sado masochistic). Original Sin (guilt) is repressed in the human psyche, … perhaps to be remembered in the future at the River of Mnemosyne or forgotten again at the river of Lethe. There is no self without memory. Humans don’t create civil laws prohibiting actions they don’t perform. How much more then should Original Punishments fit Original Crimes?

    1. I am not so concerned about social justice (thats my wifes area ;). I did not read ur post here in that way, so thnk you for pointing it out.

      Rather; i look at it from the point if Orginal Sin: What is it? I am tentative about retroactive ideological justifications, such as guilt being the culprit. I seea much more insideous operation iccurring. I am not Christian btw; and set aside argument over the existence of God.

      I se OS as more implicating a state that is characterized by separation. Privlege, in philosophy, is something that everyone is suppised to avoid positing by theory; everyone is suppised to have access in potential because we are human in common.
      But i feel that due to the incessant and ubiquitous situation of social inequality (no utopia will ever come) , that it is now unproductive to see privilge as inficating a fault.

      Sure, the workingss and entanglements of the greater society will always have its theoretical bases by which to iron out specific sites of friction, and that is good and necessary.

      But as an example: There plain is not a possibility that i will ever have the knowledge or skill to translate machine code into C++ .. It has nothing to do though with want . Society may say i could and that there is an avenue if i put in the work, but the simple fact is that it will not an never happen. The world of code in that area is inaccessable to me. It is a privlged sector, beyond my comprehension.

      This situation is offensive and thus , i think, accounts for a maybe a more precise manner of understanding priviledge aas well as OS. That it is a systematic institutional norm, not merely of an ontology, becuase that is the arena wherein we get to negotiate social means. But it is a teleological mandate. Both sides enacting the priviledge, some as a type of agency and some through a type of proxy. It is a priviledge of guilt, of being separated from that which would otherwise be whole.

      I shalll have to look into Degruy.

      1. I don’t have one position. I am interested in exploring the conceptual space of all ideas. Degruy is in the zone of social justice. Privileged can repent or take a stand, consistent with drama of life conflict. Privileged should ensure masses are well-fed and don’t outbreed them to ensure likelihood of survivability. Else there will be a changing of the guard.

        Sin what is it? Good question. Existence of God let’s leave out for convenience. Good? I’ll just add an “o” and keep in.

        I’m familiar with the nebulous separation concept as one possible sin definition. That’s consistent with the Christian theology of the Child Molesters that influenced the emergence of Secularism and Modernity.

        I can also see and agree that class, gender, race separation from social norm groups, etc., causes opportunity for offense and social change (hopefully) for the good.

        Is it possible separation is sin defined? Maybe. I don’t know. If impersonal quantum causal forces are in play, if there’s no One Panentheistic Guy behind the curtain operating reality, then maybe forces separate and reconnect in cycles or mutate at random creating strife and the need for new words for monkey men to describe and observe new realities like bright red rubber balls.

        But the curious want to know (I too am a proud member of the monkey men – it’s similar to the He-Man Women Haters Club of Little Rascals Fame). The universe remains silent, except for those spokespersons making knowledge claims based on revelation or science.

        I’m less interested in sin as a separation abstraction than I am observable human behavior. All evidence points to sin being synonymous with personal and civil relationship success and failure. Justice is state sanctioned violence against offenders. Social norms change over time. This can represent growth or decay. Witness the fragmented ruins of ancient civilizations. Witness the fossil remains of extinction events.

        Human relationships are the observable microcosm kernel, from which I deduce speculatively that the macrocosm is the scene of a crime committed by beings, not things, not numbers, not abstractions.

        Could I be wrong? Hell yeah. In which case I’m in it.

      2. Yes. There is a real dynamic that we attend to. While in my daily attitudes and activities i treat everyone “as i would like to be treated” i could say that when i extend my considerations to instutionally real possibilities i (meaning literally “I” me. And im not using a ‘royal’ I that really means We) begin to fall into a pit of contradictions that i do not enjoy personally, and theoretically thus find that i have to stop the fall by asserting my identity, ehich is thus unethical (as my privledged comfort contribtes to poverty only 5 miles away). So i do not assert my theoretical identity in that way. Usualky.😛. My wife is much more comfortable in contradiction and trying to right wrongs. I simply try to solve the problem of the whole world. Lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s