Philosophy Now Forum

You are persisting in your naturalistic fallacy. What the hell do you even think you mean by natural? It's a shame natural can't here you and follow your rules!

Nonetheless the evolution of the urban landscape and humans with the thinking to design it is as natural as anything else. No evolved species is perfectly adapted to its environment. Over specialised species always end up on the scrap heap. Perhaps our greatest asset is that humans are designed adaptable, were we to loose those traits that made us good hunters and gatherers we might not survive the next collapse of civilisation - so keeping those traits that you might consider to be unfortunate might be useful again. it's the price we pay for living longer but getting diseases of old age. We are one of a few species that get these diseases- we ought to be proud that we live so long.

It does not work like that. Traits have to be present in the gene pool BEFORE they are required and selected. Evolution can only work on selection by those without traits failing to make viable progeny.

They never will "catch-up", - like I said fat people and diabetic people have no problem having children. Case closed.

Hallelujah! nature has no other criteria for success than having viable progeny. Diseases of opulence and old age are not de-selected because they do not harm our ability to have children. That is NATURE.

So what? You are making a moral argument - not a naturalistic one.

Guess what? nature has also provided you with a brain. You can avoid the things you don't like. but that does not give you the right to tell people how they ought to live.

PhilosophiaQueen wrote:

You are persisting in your naturalistic fallacy. What the hell do you even think you mean by natural? It's a shame natural can't here you and follow your rules!

Nonetheless the evolution of the urban landscape and humans with the thinking to design it is as natural as anything else. No evolved species is perfectly adapted to its environment. Over specialised species always end up on the scrap heap. Perhaps our greatest asset is that humans are designed adaptable, were we to loose those traits that made us good hunters and gatherers we might not survive the next collapse of civilisation - so keeping those traits that you might consider to be unfortunate might be useful again. it's the price we pay for living longer but getting diseases of old age. We are one of a few species that get these diseases- we ought to be proud that we live so long.

It does not work like that. Traits have to be present in the gene pool BEFORE they are required and selected. Evolution can only work on selection by those without traits failing to make viable progeny.

They never will "catch-up", - like I said fat people and diabetic people have no problem having children. Case closed.

Hallelujah! nature has no other criteria for success than having viable progeny. Diseases of opulence and old age are not de-selected because they do not harm our ability to have children. That is NATURE.

So what? You are making a moral argument - not a naturalistic one.

Yeah pretty much. But it's not the words themselves that mean much to me but the intended meanings. I also realize the genes won't "catch up", but for that reason there will be some discrepancy going on.

What has happened (societal growth and such) is natural as you say, but it's also out of the typical, and it happened very fast.

Guess what? nature has also provided you with a brain. You can avoid the things you don't like. but that does not give you the right to tell people how they ought to live.

Indeed I can't. And I don't care if others don't live according to some principle, what I care about is that my line of thought is justified, with no missing pieces or ignored perspectives.

PhilosophiaQueen wrote:Oh ok. Anything more then?

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that.

While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

PhilosophiaQueen wrote:Your english is quite unclear, but I tried my best in replying to your post.

I know some people like that. And it's good to be impulsively animalistic - it's the way it should be. However, one shoould do activities which feed these impulses, make it all the more intense.

One symptom is the diabetes epidemic. People should use their bodies, but don't. Some even get hooked on random sedentary activities, which also is wrong. Not to mention most sedentary activities don't bring intensity.

same old same old words and meanings like "village people", "vatican city" and "thebes polis"?

If you're refering to how archetypes show themselves again and again, then yeah sure I guess you could use those as examples.

nature calls,eh? me tarzan, you jane? sligthly hairy and romantic idea? should we live in the trees again? how about driving in a mororway like " impulsively animalistic" and "all the more intense"?

did man and other creatures living in land came from the sea without any symptoms? some even got hooked on flying! are birds unnatural freaks or what? what if people will replace their bodyparts to better new ones in the near future? what if the change is more faster than before?

for a starter, what is "nature"? what you mean when you write "archetypes"? archetype of city show itself in a name of a gay band, in a name of a state and in a word "polis" that is older than word "city"? like if you see the archetype of "train" in a gay train, a morris mini and training chained slaves? do life and death in different forms again and again bore you to death or not?

PhilosophiaQueen wrote:

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. [Not even a sentence]Why care if a cord is a little messy? [What the fuck? What cord?] Some people actually care about such bull.[ What bull?] A painting too. [ Again not a sentence.] It's just a painting. That's that.

Here I pretty much mean exactly what I'm saying. Minor details can be ignored to better pursue what's wortwhile in the greater context.

[Does not seem to relate to what you say above]

While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

My main issue is that some people put soooo much emphasis on aesthetics. See the picture in this link, which I found by googling "beautiful mathematics"

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... iful-math/

I don't know much math, but even if I did I can't imagine that picture or much else of the supposedly "beautiful" mathematics as in that pic. They just seem like many lines and colors. The fact that so many mathematicians are obsessed with beauty makes them seem weird. Also, many famous mathematicians have also been freaks, which also suggests baggage. It's not just mathematics I don't find appealing though, but aesthetics in general. With things like the opposite sex, which there is a much more direct and real reason for attraction, well, that I do understand and feel. Due to being so bodily it seems more irrational and less controllable, and less worth controlling too. That's a smal part of humanity though, and the weird neatfreakery has grown to quite the size, I must say.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. [Not even a sentence]Why care if a cord is a little messy? [What the fuck? What cord?] Some people actually care about such bull.[ What bull?] A painting too. [ Again not a sentence.] It's just a painting. That's that.

PhilosophiaQueen wrote: The sense of speed from driving is good but there's not much happening other than driving.

Nah, birds aren't freaks. If people replace their body parts and live longer or indefinitely then that doesn't seem bad to me as long as society keeps it all together.

Yeah the archetype city shows up everywhere. Most importantly "city" is an idea, a ghostly, fleeting concept which is inaccurately used to refer to real places with all the specific differences between them which of course the archetype doesn't account for, as archetypes are generalized patterns. Archetypes:
An original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated; a prototype

Nature? It's not so much that as it is being within our current bodies didn't evolve for, so while we overall profit from living in society measured by lifespan, there's still inefficiencies like getting hooked on sedentary living. Such wouldn't happen in the stone age.

PhilosophiaQueen wrote:

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. [Not even a sentence]Why care if a cord is a little messy? [What the fuck? What cord?] Some people actually care about such bull.[ What bull?] A painting too. [ Again not a sentence.] It's just a painting. That's that.

Geez, you're really caught up in nitpicking structure, aren't you? A cord as in any cord. There are people who OCD-ishly clean up in that kinda of thing. All of that was in relation to people who are really focused on having everythng clean and tidy. If you paid more attention to overall context instead of nitpicking each and every sentence by itself then maybe you would catch my drift.

Mark Question wrote:... are birds unnatural freaks or what? ...

Arising_uk wrote:

Mark Question wrote:... are birds unnatural freaks or what? ...

I thought we now thinking them dinosaurs?