01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [871][872][873][874][875][876][877][878][879][880] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4423 |
4424 |
Arminius wrote:
»So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).« ** **There's an option 3, which I think is actually the most common option:
3.) Find a reason to interact with them that doesn't turn on convincing them of anything, or their admitting that somebody else made a good point. I think this is where a lot of trolling on the internet comes from- it is decided that it is pointless to treat a person, or a class of people, or perhaps all people on the internet as rational agents, and so the troll speaks to them for their own amusement instead. **
4425 |
Subsconscious and unconscious are generally considered synonyms, the former a lay term. How do you distinguish them? **
And then what is superconsciousness to you? **
Unfortunately super has come to mean 'really really' or 'best possible' rather than something like encompassing or transcendent.. **
4426 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»The intent was that unconscious refer to things without any consciousness at all; simple nerve responses, trees, rocks, biological growth,.... And subconscious was to refer to the lesser elements within a consciousness, often partially conscious themselves. **
Do you mean Arminius' intent? Schelling? Coleridge? Not Freud in any case. **
4427 |
Only Humean wrote:
»Amorphos wrote:
Your ultimate question in philosophy? **
How do I live a good life?« **
What is »good« for you? ** **
4428 |
I'll complain about metaphysics all day long. **
4429 |
By analogy, the subconscious of the old constitutional USA would be the House of Representatives with their narrow minded, limited scope issues (national emotionalism). The Senate would be the »conscious«, being far more aware of relevant foreign activities. And the »unconscious« would be the various physical concerns involved in communication: mail service, telephone networks, roads, computers, automated responses,....
And then relative to an individual, the nation's consciousness, the Senate's awareness of foreign and secret activities, is the »superconsciousness«. **
4430 |
Arminius wrote:
»Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling (1775-1854) for example, yes, but more Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906) who was called the philosopher of the unconscious long before Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).« ** **
But did he use the word subconscious? I think that came from Piaget who meant pretty much the same thing as Freud's version of unconscious. **
But in any case, how do you distinguish subconscious from unconscious. We can develop the terms. It's not that I want us to align with Freud, but rather that I don't know anyone who uses both terms and have seen them used in the same sense mainly. **
4431 |
Arminius wrote:
»Six people in two groups.
There are six people A, B, C, D, E, F which are in each case either in group 1 or group 2. The following statements are given:
1. Both A and B are in 1.
2. F is in 2, and if E is in 2, then C is also in 2.
3. D is in 1 and if F is in 2, then A is also in 2.
4. A and E are both in 2.
5. D is in 2 and E is in 1, and if C is in 2, then B is in 1.
6. D and B are both in 2.
7. The statements 1-6 are wrong.Who is in which group?« ** **
1) A, C, D.
2) B, E, F. **
Arminius wrote:
»Who is depicted here?« ** **
Looks an awful lot like: ... (**). **
4432 |
4433 |
Arminius, in addition, there may be the problem with classification. What form does it take? A clear cut severance? **
In effects, is there clear cut neuro positioning from one area of the brain to the other, corresponding to their effects? **
Or, is there an overlay of functions from different parts of the brain? **
4434 |
|
4435 |
4436 |
Arminius wrote:
»Don't you have something better to do than complaining all day long?
__________________________________________________________Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.« ** **
If I had anything better to do, I would be doing it. Philosophy is, in the end, an art and not a science. **
4437 |
The Arts without Abstract Expressionism would still be The Arts. And in the main, better for it. Comedy would still be comedy without Tim Allen. And it would certainly be funnier.. **
4438 |
4439 |
Army - snappy comeback. **
Der Herr: Kennst du den Faust?
Mephistopheles: Den Doktor?
Der Herr: Meinen Knecht!
Mephistopheles: Fürwahr! er dient Euch auf besondre Weise.
Nicht irdisch ist des Toren Trank noch Speise.
.... **
The Lord: Do you know Faust?
Mephistopheles: The doctor?
The Lord: My servant.
Mephistopheles: Ah, he serves you well, indeed!
He scorns earth's fare and drinks celestial mead.
....
4440 |
Der Herr: ....
Es irrt der Mensch, so lang er strebt. **
The Lord: ....
Man errs, till he has ceased to strive.
|
4441 |
4442 |
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Else:
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake. **
4443 |
4444 |
4445 |
4446 |
4447 |
4448 |
1) First, decide on whether you are an atheist or a believer in a god. If you are the latter, you might want to decide which god, but the most important thing is to decide if you are a believer in any god. **
2) Decide between three basic theories of human nature. Are we entirely physical, are we entirely mental (is our essence our mind, whatever the fuck that is) or are we essentially spiritual. Or, some combination thereof. If it's a combination, god help you. If you believe in a god. If not, you're screwed. **
3) Try to decide this issue: Are you going to think scientifically - seeking ever-closer approximations to close descriptions of the world - or religiously/rationalistically - looking for absolutely correct answers. **
4) Try hard to recognize that most written philosophy is political science, however crude. **
5) Also try to recognize that every political philosophy supports a morality. No matter what you read, this is the ultimate goal of most philosophers. If you know what morality the philosopher is supporting, you understand him. If you don't know what morality he supports, you don't understand him.
6) Accept that philosophy is a special study of language. You MUST master your language before you will ever be a good philosopher. **
7) Master the process of abstraction. Understand it. Well. If you cannot do this well, you're even more screwed than if you screw up 2). **
8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.
9) Read the Bible.
10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss. **
Your ... 8th, the 9th, the 10th are the most »Biased Commandments«. ** **
Hope this is helpful. **
|
4449 |
Arminius wrote:
»To find a real atheist is as difficult as to find a real God.« ** **
So what? **
Arminius wrote:
»The last two sentences are biased comments.« ** **
No shit. **
Arminius wrote:
»Science is not free of religion and rationalism.« ** **
Hamburger is not free of rat shit. Should we prefer the rat shit? **
Arminius wrote:
»Political science? You - the one who says philosophy is not science but art - are saying that philosophy is political science! You contradict yourself.« ** **
I take it that nuanced use of language is not your thing. **
Did I claim that political science was science? **
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, you must master your language and also know at least two foreign languages that are not much related with each other.« ** **
I'm going to take a crazy guess and say that you have done that. I take it that English is not one of them. Which is fine. Not a criticism.
I hope everything I say is biased. It's supposed to be. You don't seem to get much about this philosophy thing. **
That's okay - we're all still learning. **
By the way, I use »Faust« because it's my name. **
4450 |
The environment and your relation to it is what creates your choices. You don't create the choices independently or out of some whimsical free will.
You merely react to what limited choices are presented to you environmentally. **
4451 |
4452 |
If we take the example of the prehuman, at least until very recently, if now, there was no post human. Perhaps there will be, but it isn't here now. So perhaps there is no superconsciousness (yet). Perhaps we will turn the world into a nuclear cinder before any posthumans come to be. **
Also wouldn't this kind of deduction lead to an infinite series. If we have subcellular processes, then were have cells in a superposition to those, yes. They we have the body in a superposition to that and cells in a subposition to the body. Sure, we can go on to ecosystem, perhaps solar system - though here the terms not longer have meaning to me. But at some point, it seems to me we will reach a place where, yes, there are sub-somethings, but no super-something to all of these. **
Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn't at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language. **
Arminius wrote
»So the superconsciousness as the opposite of the subconsciousness is what is beyond the consciousness, whereas the consciousness itself is beyond the subconsciousness which is beyond the unconsciousness. If we believe in an area between the consciousness and the unconsciousness, then we can also believe that the consciousness is an area between the subconsciousness and the superconsciousness. I would even say that the word consciousness stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of superconsciousness is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.« ** **
What is it referring to, can you use it in a more specific sentence? What do we do with it? **
4453 |
BTW, why are you so afraid of bias? **
4454 |
Faust wrote:
»8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.« **
I enjoyed your list and liked the above one the most. Though, i would have liked to see Nietzsche's name before Heidegger there. **
Faust wrote:
»10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss.« **
4455 |
UglyGirl26 And Joker Getting Married. **
It's official, me and UglyGirl26 plan on getting married within the next couple of years.
Eight years ago me and her met each other offline through ILP in North Carolina where we dated each other briefly. We split up abruptly and lost contact thereafter. We started talking to each other again for the last three months where we have every intention in living together and having a long term relationship through committed marriage.
For the longest time since we split up I felt she was the lost love of my life that got away and now that we're back together we plan on tying the knot.
The marriage will more than likely take place in an undisclosed place in Florida within the next two to three years. **
4456 |
Yes, we really do plan on getting married within the next couple of years Arminius. **
4457 |
Arminius wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
How do I live a good life? **
What is good for you?« ** **
If I could tell you that, it wouldn't be much of a question, would it? **
The primacy of the question is in its immediacy and application to a running project.
»What is good?« is a subsidiary question, insofar as it's relatively uninteresting besides in its application to the main question. It's also a question that can lead you off down many blind alleys. »Good« is a profoundly contextual word. There's little value in abstracting what makes a good cupcake, a good novel, a good day and a good haircut and trying to tie that into a good life, for me. It would be more instructive to prioritise those four (and many others) in their importance/necessity in leading a good life.
I like your refinement of the question; a good life (for me) unquestionably is lived in a social setting, and the good and health of the society and the culture is an integral part of that. Thank you for clarifying my question. **
Arminius wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
How do I live a good life? **
What is good for you?« ** **
Good answer by OH but Arminius rightly raised that question. **
|
44598 |
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, but without a super and sub makes not much sense. The dichotomy of super and sub is like the dichotomy of under and over or of below and above etc. pp..« ** **
I would certianly think that before we get to the level of 'the universe' there will always be some kind of super for each sub. But it seems not necessarily of the same kind, that a category shift, a move away from the object or organism in question takes place or can. IOW I am not saying that there is nothing beyond my consciousness (and in fact in my belief system there is something that could perhaps be called a superconsciousness), but for, for example, a physicalist, we have a subconsciousness, a consciousness, but there is nothing conscious in super relation, as part of that human, beyond. There is stuff beyond the consciousness of the individual, but it would not be his or hers. What I am saying here is that a physicalist could use the term subconscious, when referring to Joe, without it entailing a superconsciousness. The subconsciousness is below a threshhold and consciousness is above it. No need to bring in a superconsciousness which is above or surrounds that.
Which brings up another issue. To me consciuosness is surrounded by what I would call the unconscious, not the reverse. **
Moreno wrote:
»Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn't at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language.« **
Arminius wrote:
»Yes.« ** **
You are agreeing now? **
The superconsciousness is also comparable with a godhood that is coming from inside and outside of us. The anti-religious and anti-theistic ILP members will say: This is the same old religion. I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word religion. We can call it spiritual trainingtoo. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear. In addition, the superconsciousness is not solely a religious phenomenon. The religious phenomenon is merely one of many other examples that can show how the superconsciousness is working.
I suppose that model is similar or really at such a level of abstraction that it can fit with my beliefs. **
4459 |
World War I destroyed Tsarist Russia which is how the communist revolution took place effectively there. **
|
4460 |
4461 |
4462 |
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, because: (1) Hierarchies may have limits. May! We just know not much about it. (2) You are a kind of theist, yes. (3) It seems to you that it is being fooled by logic, yes. (4) Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.« ** **
Yes, I am not making a rule that language is arbritrary. I am countering the rule that reality must work the way language implies it will and that we can always deduce via language to how reality will be. I have no rule in either direction. Sometimes we can and sometimes we cannot. **
Arminius wrote:
»It can fit with your beliefs? Could you describe your beliefs precisely?« ** **
Well, no, not really. But relevent to this I can say that I believe there is a wider consciousness of which our own is a fragment. **
Western logic has the either A or not A type self evident truths. I think these are limited. IOW I think there are 'things' events processes where it is me AND not me. Inside but also outside. Self and not self. We can see this with things that are unconscious in us. Say we have a pattern of behavior in relation to women. Others notice this. We are not aware of it. Years later we become aware of it. Perhaps first we notice that they have a point. We do behave in a certain way that implies this. But why would we be angry at women? **
The anger is in the unconscious. Yet - and here's the key point - when we do become aware of it, there is a way in which we can feel we were always aware of it. This is a an A and not A situation, but, sadyly for certain logicians, I think it is the case. **
I mention this because this is consciousness and unconsciousness, but something like this seems to me to be the case in the consciousness to superconsciousness direction. Separation and connection. **
4463 |
Faust wrote:
»I'm still wondering how read the Bible is biased in the first place. Read one of the (or maybe just 'the') seminal works of Western literature may show that I am biased toward literacy and education. I can live with that.« **
Well it is ethnocentric, but then again, most of this board is in the Western Hemisphere. Plus the Western Hemisphere seems to be the hemisphere to be. **
4464 |
Arminius wrote:
»Thus: A superconsciousness!(?)?(!).« ** **
Yes. If your various exclamation points, etc., can be interpreted to mean something like: Hey, but I thought you didn't think it existed what was all that stuff about not being able to deduce.....etc., I was arguing in general, not because your conclusion was one I disagreed with, but the process seemed weak to me. I stand by my issues with deducing it exists because a subconscious exists, but, for my own intuitive and experiential reasons do in fact believe in something that could be called that. **
Arminius wrote:
»I wonder how you have come to the latter conclusion, if it is one.« ** **
I was using it as an example, a hypothetical. That said, I do think men and women are angry at each other....all of them. There are degrees of this and degrees of awareness of this. **
Arminius wrote:
»And I agree with it the more, the more it is not meant in the way of psychoanalysis but of pure existence and its analysis (compare: Dasein and Daseinsanalyse - Martin Heidegger).« ** **
I'll do that. I am not a Freudian, though I suppose I am a post-Freudian. There are things not dreamt of in his philosophy that I beleive exist. And I think he saw some patterns and made them rules when they are not. I also think his map of the mind is limited. I rather liked Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's book on how Freud ended up with his SEduction Theory. It nicely places Freud in his time as an individual.
I do not think it is just consciousness however. There is also a super...hm, not sure a good term here, but it would be feelings, desires, urges, intuitions. What fills the internal space of consciousness. That from which consciousness springs and which gives life.
A lot of the mystical traditions have what I would consider a rather male idea of transcendence, this super awareness. Sort of a Buddha, or Angel gazing out over existence. I think that's only part of life. **
|
4465 |
Evolution And Maladaptability.
This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.
Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability?
»A maladaptation is a trait that is (or has become) more harmful than helpful, in contrast with an adaptation, which is more helpful than harmful. All organisms, from bacteria to humans, display maladaptive and adaptive traits. In animals (including humans), adaptive behaviors contrast with maladaptive ones. Like adaptation, maladaptation may be viewed as occurring over geological time, or within the lifetime of one individual or a group.
It can also signify an adaptation that, whilst reasonable at the time, has become less and less suitable and more of a problem or hindrance in its own right, as time goes on. This is because it is possible for an adaptation to be poorly selected or become less appropriate or even become on balance more of a dysfunction than a positive adaptation, over time.« (**). **
4466 |
4467 |
4468 |
The economy needs to be abolished for the world to live green. **
4469 |
Hillary and Bill. **
4470 |
Random Factor wrote:
»I'm saying that everyone has homosexual tendencies whether they admit it or not.« **
What kind of nonsense is this?! Where the hell are you getting this from? Your self? Some science magazine? That's like saying everyone is susceptible to a particular mental illness. Or that everyone could be fetishized in a particular way. Just because you might like taking it up your arse and enjoy it, doesn't mean that everyone could learn to enjoy it as well (because they, being like you, should already have the potential in them). **
4471 |
Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind 'us'.
(Just to be gloomy.)
Otherwise I agree. **
4472 |
4473 |
4474 |
4475 |
4476 |
4477 |
2op.
Scientists don't know every area of science, that's why you get experts. I think philosophers should know the science [or any knowledge or philosophy] which pertains to what they are saying philosophically. **
4478 |
I votes yes, the more you know the more evaluating you can do, the more evidence you can reach and apply to your arguments or quest.
The quest for any philosopher should ultimately be the quest for knowing more, right? **
4479 |
4480 |
Arminius wrote:
»Do you think that machines will eat the crust of the planet?« ** **
If it all heads toward the singularity I assume they will find a way to 'eat' everything. **
4481 |
4482 |
Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That's why I think. **
4483 |
This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.
Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability? **
4484 |
Hahaha wrote:
»Maladaption is merely evolutionary adaptions that are more harmful than beneficial.« **
But then it is very hard to judge. Even what we consider genetic diseases were useful in some times/Environments .... **
4485 |
Hahaha wrote:
»Well, I guess my interest in maladaption concerning biology, nature, and evolution is because I view all of humn civilization as one giant maladaption.« **
According to nature that may be true, but we have adapted to the things we have created. First we devised things from nature in prehistoric times, then came metals and we could now shape things however we wanted e.g. swords. We have continued to adapt to all the inventions through the industrial revolution and til now. I agree that that is a maladaption in terms of evolution and nature, then to a lesser degree so was the stone age. We are not the only animals which use tools tho. **
|
4486 |
4487 |
4488 |
It's because A names are the best. **
4489 |
I voted no as I understood the question to mean »is knowing every branch of science an 'ought' for any given philosopher?« I don't see that the majority of philosophy is improved by knowledge of bivalve reproduction or karst formation.
If you meant something along the lines of »should every branch of science have interested philosophers who know about it?«, then I think yes. **
If you think that philosophers are less prone to guarding religious edifices of dogma, which you seem to accuse scientists of, I would disagree. There are precisely the same motivations and mechanisms at work in all fields. **
4490 |
Does anyone know a branch of science? OK, I am being fussy, but it seemed rather yes/no without gradations. It would be strange, I think, if a philosopher did not also find some interest in science, likely a couple of fields. **
Biology and physics come to mind as ones with easy connections to many philosophical issues. I am not sure it is a necessary condition for being a good philosopher, but I would guess that any philosopher who did not get curious about some of the sciences would like not have the necessary attributes to be a philosopher. Just as it would be strange if they never read any literature or had no interest in psychology.
I have to say I am more concerned about scientists having no knowledge of philosophy, which actually seems more likely given specialization and how philosophy is viewed. **
4491 |
4492 |
4493 |
4494 |
I would think that it would be useful for most philosophers to have delved into the philosophy and history of science. To do this well, they would need to have some sense of specifics. OH mentions a couple of specifics and I agree with him, in the sense that a philosopher needs not, for example, have an in depth knowledge of all or even on butterfly species and its ecology. But to understand general issues, it would be good, I would think, if he or she read about some specifics, got into one or more scientific fields, as an amateur, enough to be able to read professional papers on specific species and get the gist. Or some parallel exposure to specifics in some other science. Otherwise epistemology and methodologies and models are too abstract. It would be too easy to think you understood what science was about, getting all in some dry an airy way. **
I would think that philosophers would draw conclusions, just as much as scientists along dogma lines, BUT they would be less likely to simply scoff at alternate positions. The scientists I have known are more likely to simply say something is fluff or BS and think that is a good endpoint to the discussion. The philosophers I have known generally will explore, especially if you do it well. At the end of the day they end up back where they started, but the interaction is much more useful and respectful. My sense is also that they become skilled at smelling at least one type of lies or better put the lies of one political party, one paradigmatic ontology, etc. Whereas scientists often are really quite limited. They have opinions and can be rational, so to speak, but I am not sure how good they are at spotting the problems with the more polished advocates of any position. Whereas from philosophers you can get nice lines of argument about at least those groups they tend to oppose.
I think also that if you replaced scientists with philosophers - and somehow they could do the scientists jobs - they might, for example, have a harder time just aligning with Monsanto, say. They would notice issues where the scientists would not. They would be more suceptible to outside criticism. Perhaps this would merely be a phase before they hardened up and ratinoalized away whatever dissonence the criticism created, but it seems to me they would have to, by temperment and training, engage the critics at least in their own minds. Scientists are trained to dismiss, to treat ontology as a no longer controversial subject, etc.. **
Arminius wrote:
»When the culture has great times (whatever great means in this relation), then science follows and gets great times too, often when culture already starts having less great times.
![]()
![]()
« ** **
Not quite sure what to make of that »chart«. Is the moon landing a great thing? I mean, I can see it as an incredible achievement, but not even good. Though in the image it would correspond to fashion that might not seem great, so perhaps it isn't. **
Somewhere underlying much of my response to this is the takeover of the technocrats coupled with modern versions of capitalism. If there is no problem there is no product so find a problem or make one then design a product for it. Make sure solutions are technological and never reduce overall energy consumption or product consumption. Downplay non-technological solutions. Downplay political solutions where we can find a way to sell a technological one. Try to get as much of the world conceived of as mechanism, because mechanisms require repair, upgrades, liscences and corporate dependence. Anything that does not view things as mechanisms should be downplayed.
Very few people take this position at this level of abstraction, yet it is the most powerful position out there today and it is worming its way into everything.
To a scientist it need not be a given, but it does tie in with their culture and also with their epistemology.
A philosopher's culture does not head them in this direction - though the rest of the culture does. **
4495 |
Arminius wrote:
»Evolution is all about self-preservation.
« ** **
And passing information/beliefs while preserving.
Micro to macro, the cell passes it as do we. **
|
4496 |
4497 |
4498 |
The top 1 percent only have about 40 percent debt-to-income and hold onto a large portion of assets. This group also controls most stock wealth in the US .... **
4499 |
Arminius wrote:
»I think that it is not good that, according to the English language, the word science mainly refers to natural science, thus all other branches are not mainly regarded as scientific branches, but at least they are sometimes called human sciences or moral sciences, otherwise: arts or humanities.« ** **
But that stuff is just made up!!! It's entertainment!!! Or guesswork!!! (Wry). **
Arminius wrote:
»Where is philosophy here? Should it be there?
I mean: Philosophy is somehow science too. All scientific theory is somehow philosophy.« ** **
Yes, and if you tell most scientists that they will say that science is not dependent on philosophy and that the latter is speculation. They have the axioms they trust and are running with it. And this works, in many ways, but not others. **
Arminius wrote:
»Do you think that a philosopher is more harmless than a scientist?« ** **
To damn them with faint praise, I suppose. There are scientists who simply explore the world and are not directly caught up in various organizations that I think are pernicious. **
I see the greatest threat now to everything I love and could love to be coming from technocratic forces. Thus scientists are at the very least being used or their work is being used and I hear little outrcry from the mainstream portion of the science community. Philosophers today are mostly fine tuning various philosophical positions and have little effect on anything. I wish they would turn their minds onto the dominant assumptions out there. They don't need to draw conclusions that are alternative, but if they could attack the rhetoric and models and arguments of the dominant patterns first, then work their way down to alternative ones, it could be great. But they seem to have little interest in this.
IOW they need not believe what I do, but could function as skeptics, demanding justification for what has the most power out there, even if they agree with it. I mean if they agree with it, then they should assume it can have excellent justification. **
4500 |
This is a part of my negative reaction to the whole civilization is female or suits females. **
|
4501 |
Arminius wrote:
»What is »just made up«? And by whom?« ** **
That was me playing outraged that the humanities or psychology etc, could be referred to as sciences. **
Arminius wrote:
»Philosophers should know better.« ** **
Yes, though today I think most take a wide range of issues for granted. It is as Jesus said render unto science that which is sciences and render unto modern neocapitalism that which is neocapitalism's. This leaves not so much to discuss in ontology and epistemology, and then in politics either. **
Arminius wrote:
»When I was a student and a research assistant at the university, I hoped to simply explore the world too, but then I noticed that science is more a dependent institution of mercenary competitors or warriors than a free market of research.« ** **
I think many of us had the image of the 1800s amateur polymath naturalist, out there pursuing interests, making drawings, sending long letters to colleagues, collecting, having brandy thursday evenings and discussing the latest ideas from the continent before wandering off again alone into higher math or the Amazon. **
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, but many philosophers are used and misused too, and they allow their moneygivers to use and misuse them too.« ** **
I think shame is a powerful force. To question certain things, in a serious way, can lead one to being shunned and/or shamed. Seen as silly, dismissed. Yes, the organized religions have tremendous power in much of the world, but the shaming of anyone going against the mainstream is enormous and powerful. You will be mocked. Your kids going to school will have friends who show you being mocked by some expert or other. Your department colleagues will look at you as if you are strange. It may of course affect your funding and direct power moves are always present. But after more than a decade in the education system, where one might presumably exploring, one has been trained that taking certain ideas seriously or questioning other ideas means you are a fool, deluded, insane, damaging young minds, immoral. It is one thing to read about what, say, Dawkins says in the newpaper about someone else, but to have local shamers and bashers come after you is really unpleasant. The indirect emotional controls in Western society are very powerful. **
4502 |
A metaphor, before I look for the nearest door
existence a river
Life emerging in the flow
fighting the currentSelf-preservation is an indication of standing your ground
constant effort
If strength is enough
excess energies can be directed up-stream, or across stream, or to reproduce
a new life for the stormNeed is the sensation of this endless flow
fitness determines how much energy will overflowThe fittest reproduces or reaches the highest point up-stream
a dream
The weakest are washed away
slowly the energies subside
and not enough are present to resist the flow
Natural selectionIn this time weakness is protected,
helped along
Giving the impression of fitness
Multiplying weaknessHow long before the entire structure is washed away?
a herd protected from culling, eats all the vegetation
leading to its own demise
Mutations left unchecked
illness spreads
The herd suffers a slow deathcycles repeat
in existential heat
Will machines suffice
to resist the tide? **
4503 |
4504 |
4505 |
Are the current generation the suckiest of all time? **
They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity? **
Violent Chaotic Anarchist. **
Anarchist, Outlaw, Super Villain, Social Deviant, Criminal Entrepeneur, And General Outcast. **
Chaos, Collapse Of Civilization, Human Expirience, Nihilism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Violence, Inequality, Tyranny, Extinction, War, Nature, Egoism, Sadism, Selfishness, Misery, Despair, Guns, Knives, Grenades, Barely Legal Women, Sex, Cigarettes, And Booze. **
The music industry won, they conformed rock n roll and then everything else until now they aren't selling much at all. Well done them, that's a lesson in how to suck so badly you suck the life out of your own business. **
The political conformists [the system] has successfully removed nearly all lefty subculture, at least limited it to a level it can manage. So now we move from box to box, we don't just spring up a free festival wherever, we don't do anything we are told not to do. Is that philosophically healthy? Don't you need danger and a variety of different factions at each others throats? What will become of humanity if everyone conforms?
My guess is that the world wont have it, and just when the system thinks it has us all in check, something will happen that will catch them by surprise and they wont be prepared for it. - I hope so anyway. **
I suppose that if things don't change, then humanity will destroy itself simply by continuing down its current course. Ergo you need change! **
4506 |
Arminius, ask me what?
**
They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity? **
4507 |
What do I think of the younger generations? I call them the Mickey Mouse Generation.
The younger generations are the pinnacle achievement of social conditioning, engineering, and manipulation.
On a psychological level they are the direct creation of psychological government experiment in human husbandry.
Take a look at the brain dead Facebook twattle dumb masses of the younger generation and you'll see the abstraction of authoritarian collectivism mastered to such extensive effect in real time. Their entire existence is what I like to refer to as the Mickey Mouse Effect. **
4508 |
Arminius wrote:
»And homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.« ** **
Arminius wrote:
»Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.
The stage of evolution consists of the evolutionary actors (here: living beings) and the evolutionary scenery (environment). My thesis is that the actor homo sapiens has been destroying his scenery for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the Neolithic Revolution) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).
By the word dissociation I mean the avoidance of adaptation.« ** **
Beavers tear down trees, change courses of rivers, and flood entire forest areas just to make themselves a cozy pool in which to swim so they won't have to walk instead. Unlike many mammals closely related to them, they have eliminated the need to hibernate, spending the winter months eating food that they stored up and grooming/socializing inside their dens. **
Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.« ** **
How do humans or beavers falsify the principle of selection? **
4509 |
The category of poster I am least charitable with is the 'voice of reason and science' poster who doesn't really know any philosophy, certainly not any epistemology or philosophy of science, has little idea of how one justifies an assertion, is content with fallacies strewn in their own posts as they deride whomever they consider barbarians, such as Chrisitans, New Agers, alternative medicine people, conspiracy theorists, spiritual people. Dawkins is a famous example of the type. **
What didn't your teacher know about you? them? **
4510 |
Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences. **
4511 |
Some people (here, for example) say that civilization suits women better than men, and, essentially that men thrive in something more primitive and civilization does not suit their needs and desires. I say, BS. I see civilization as organized more by males and to suit the male desires for linear interactions, distanced relations, and control. **
4512 |
My conclusion is that Shiva [or a given androgynous deity, as per culture] exists and is a god. **
4513 |
Do we own ourselves? **
==>
|