We won’t go too deep, mind you. Perhaps we are being rather simple and reductionist here, but a priori a large number of classical philosophers discussed good or evil as elements of human nature.
Immanuel Kant, for example, postulated that “man is evil by nature” in his work Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason. The thinker argues that people know moral rules but ignore them if it is for their own personal gain.
Some time later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in excellent French that: “what makes a man essentially good is to have few needs and to compare himself little with others; what makes him essentially bad is having too many needs and being too opinionated.’
interesting Sticking to an opinion is what ends up happening on social media. Whatever you do there, you seek that opinion, whether it turns out to be the end goal or not. That’s why people use filters on their images, smile forever and postulate their best qualities there.
It is true that in everyday life we also strive to present ourselves to the outside world with the greatest possible virtue. We brush our hair before leaving the house and if we have time we even take a bath. We dress according to the image we want to project. In fact, many people wear make-up to look better.
But it is no less true that obedience to the masses in our daily lives is scarce. People bump into their neighbors, their coworkers, and at best, their bus mates. In social networks, the collection is greater because the exposure is simply in front of everyone.
All exposed to all. This explains the care taken to look pleasant, happy, sexy and even neat, except for some artists for whom the lack of personal hygiene is a virtue component.
The fact is that this exhibition ultimately has a complex dual impact. Because even with all the spread of virtue and happiness, we meet other people who prefer to use the networks to attack other people. Something that outside the networks has a different appearance.
To give a simple example: if I’m walking 10 blocks through Palermo, it’s hard for a stranger to stop me to tell me I’m going bald. Someone might register my presence on my tour and if I get their attention I reflect for a few seconds “poor guy is losing his hair”. End of story.
Now, if I expose myself to millions on social media, most of them with the safety of distance and anonymity, human nature is heightened at its worst. I may be a physically fine person, wear nice clothes, show acrobatic merits, but there will be many people who say: “ehhhh bald”.
In social networks, mass psychology is sharpened and, on the other hand, the lowest human nature, which discovers the need for approval, submission to the opinion of others and indicates it in order to enjoy the suffering caused.
As with aggression, as with any relationship, people say things online that they wouldn’t say face to face. Those who claim that the networks are used for “uplifting” do so because in this area rejection is less painful, or even because on the face of it one can react with offense, something that in real life is less -complicated because it can become a creditor of mamporro.
In short, social media dialogue is the immanent proof that the human being is “essentially evil.” No end can be achieved by calling a lady “fat”, or mocking her suffering, or disparaging her children or her life. And we witness this all the time. The only satisfaction that can be derived from this is to quench one’s own thirst for aggression, something typical of evil beings.
It is true, the world has been reduced to nothing, no one is far from anyone, the networks have reduced the planet. We believe that we witness and share the lives of others with whom we would like to associate. We all know everything when it happens. But intolerance also grew, coverage was given to the worst version of us, abuse multiplied. Experts say it hurts teenagers, and it certainly does more than adults, but nothing, nothing, is the same as prolonged aggression.