Philosophy Now Forum

Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:27 am
To paraphrase Voltaire: If the English had one religion, they would have dogmatism. If the English had two religions, there would be war. But since the English have a plethora of religions, there is peace.

The English have had at least 4 civil wars, one via inheritied kingship - steven vs empress maud, the others were in effect over the tribes of Christianity. Catholic vs Church of England (not prot in reality, but just Catholic centered on London rather than Rome (hist revised as Protestant in today's history books)


1. Harold vs William
2. Maud vs Steven
3. Simon de Montfort vs.......?
4. Richard 2 vs Wat Tyler
5. Richard 3 vs Henry 7th
6. Charles 1st vs Cromwell
7. James 2 vs Parlament.

------------
so my bad 7 civil wars in England.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:31 pm

Systematic wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:02 am Scheiße! Live and let live, I guess. Or, perhaps, here I will hit the mark: We should encourage breeding of the intelligent and rich education, and the rest of humanity may do whatever they please.

Well, achieving selective breeding requires more, of course. It requires not just the allowing of the desired to breed, but the suppression and eventual elimination of the breeding of the "bad stock." That is, if the goal is the achievement of a "better strain" of humanity in general, rather than, say, the mere temporary advantage of one or two.

And this was always the excuse for eugenics policies. They were "for the good of the human race," which could seem to excuse any action necessary to bring it about...

Ah yes, I seem to have missed the unofficial history of philosophies. Give the world a good idea, and they will make excuses for all manner of atrocity.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:59 pm I have an underground book - well I will have, once I find my spade.

Underground is idiomatic in the States for "not popular". So, no spade necessary.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:52 pm
No, I do not. I've tried to write a few times in the past, but my realizations kept shifting and broadening... and I could not pin anything down long enough to write about it. Writing (and playing) in this forum has helped me to explore and describe some ideas -- but there is always MORE, and I do not want to limit anything to a certain story. I'm more interested in noticing/describing within a flowing landscape rather than believing in some rigidity that I can claim to be "right" about.

I was more hoping for a description of your dealing with the world as it is concept. How does it work? Or, rather, how do you work it?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:52 pm Congratulations on your efforts!

Thank you much.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:52 pm I am a white American female who does not believe in gods... but since I do not like such classifications/labels/flag-waving, etc., I prefer to be known as an authentic spirit experiencing Earth. And I try to do it living as much in the moment as possible.

Awesome. Good luck with philosophical breakthroughs. I'm from the U.S. myself. Hopefully, we'll write something profound before the anarchists dismantle the police departments.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:06 am

Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:27 am
To paraphrase Voltaire: If the English had one religion, they would have dogmatism. If the English had two religions, there would be war. But since the English have a plethora of religions, there is peace.

The English have had at least 4 civil wars, one via inheritied kingship - steven vs empress maud, the others were in effect over the tribes of Christianity. Catholic vs Church of England (not prot in reality, but just Catholic centered on London rather than Rome (hist revised as Protestant in today's history books)


1. Harold vs William
2. Maud vs Steven
3. Simon de Montfort vs.......?
4. Richard 2 vs Wat Tyler
5. Richard 3 vs Henry 7th
6. Charles 1st vs Cromwell
7. James 2 vs Parlament.

------------
so my bad 7 civil wars in England.

Wars fought for the lack of reconciliation of two opposing ideals?

That was really the point for which I was aiming. Voltaire seems to have slipped into England for a transient peace and individuality brought about by the many protestant denominations existing all at once. And I thought, what if the political discord could be cured by a similar diversity of parties? In the U.S. we have only two parties that have a chance at power, and, it seems that is what has caused the rivalry here. I'm sorry to say that I don't fully understand British politics, but as well as I know, it seems likewise split between along two parties.

I would, however, agree that the C of E is rather like Catholicism. My apologies to the warden: Church of England.

Systematic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:31 pm ...And this was always the excuse for eugenics policies. They were "for the good of the human race," which could seem to excuse any action necessary to bring it about...

Ah yes, I seem to have missed the unofficial history of philosophies. Give the world a good idea, and they will make excuses for all manner of atrocity.

"A good idea?" Was it that? That depends.

If the way humans got to be here was by mere material processes and evolution, as "selective breeding" presupposes, then eugenics are actually a very logical idea. They are entailed by "selective breeding." But are they a "good" idea? That's a different question. And the answer has to be that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" morally, only "temporarily useful for the purposes favoured by one species or another."

Is it "good" for the human race to survive or thrive? No more than for bacteria to do so. Both are merely contingent entities on a meaningless mud ball hurtling through space. Whether one or the other lives or dies is just how it goes; it's neither "good" nor "bad." So "selective breeding" isn't, in any moral sense, a "good" idea, and eugenics isn't a "bad" one. Both are neither. What will be, will be.

But are human beings actually intrinsically valuable? That is, are they here by the purposes of their Creator, and are they endowed by Him with value? Are they actually above the bacteria? Are they special? If so, both "selective breeding" and "eugenics" are bad ideas; for they put in the hands of mere men the control over who lives and dies, and puts into their hands the assigning of value. Moreover, they convert some human beings into the tools of social engineering of the rest, making them mere instruments, and disposable ones at that. In such a case, both selective breeding and its logical concomitant, eugenics, are a morally bad idea, since they treat as valueless those lives God has ordained shall live and have value to Him.

But either way, selective breeding entails eugenics logically, with or without "philosophers," to whom we cannot attribute any special fault here. If we already believe that selective breeding is how the human race progresses, how do we make an argument against eugenics? It's merely the medical application of the general principle of progress, then. And how do you make an argument against progress, particularly in an amoral world?

Systematic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:13 am I was more hoping for a description of your dealing with the world as it is concept. How does it work? Or, rather, how do you work it?

In regard to my individual experience, I see life and the world in many ways, I suppose: a playground, a gift, a game, a stage, a dance, and a masterpiece providing a canvas for me to create artwork. But I also see that I am simply a wave in a cosmic ocean, and I'm at peace with that. There is no separation, even though I can play and interact as if there is!

Everything I think, do, and feel is a dance, as well as being my artwork. What shall I make of myself and my "life"? What shall I share/exchange/experience with others? What shall I create out of any pile of crap or magnificence that I encounter? There's so much potential! It seems unlimited.

For quite awhile now, I've been guided by how I feel as much as (if not more so than) how I think. In my earlier years, I often pushed aside how I felt and tried to think my way through everything. I've discovered that "feeling" (for me) is more accurate and efficient. I get feelings of what to do... and I check in with my brain to verify some level of validity... then I proceed... without needing to establish/attain a particular outcome. I just know it's the best way to flow in that moment... and the result is more magnificent/perfect/in-tune than my thinking, alone, could be.

Life offers up a great deal to work with. Many potential trips. If we find ourselves on a trip that we don't like, and we think we should stick with it even if there is no joy in it, then I think it's good to learn how to step back from it and question it. And to question why we should devote our limited years and energy to anything that is not a good energetic payoff/exchange. There's no need to suffer through a zombie-like life.

I find it empowering and inspiring to recognize the stage I am playing on, and have fun there. If it becomes boring or toxic, I want to know/remember that I can step off of the stage, and cruise around the festival.

I treasure life. I am very grateful. I love to play... and I love to love. If someone wants to be creepy or hateful, I can jump on my dragon and ride too if I feel like playing with that adventure. But I also enjoy basking in sweetness and love and nature... and connecting with others in creative and enjoyable ways, where we feel the bliss and awareness of our unified joy, and our combined radiance shines as bright as any star, seemingly on all sorts of levels! No drugs. Just potential, discovered/realized.

It seems to me that when we stop thinking that things are, or have to be, a certain way, we are free to discover and utilize what ELSE there is. We can choose with greater awareness from life's vast playbook of potential. All the drama on the stage is like the "set design". But we are not limited to any particular stage. If we're not too caught up in it, we can step off... grab some popcorn to sit and observe the show of characters (our self included)... turn on the theater lights to disrupt the actors ...or cruise out into the sunshine to find another setting we like better.

That's why I think it is magnificent. Even though there are terrible elements -- that's part of the vast potential/experience to work with. For me, it's a temporary opportunity to see what I can do with and within it. How much can I find to enjoy and to offer... and how much can I connect with the rest of life... while I'm able to do so. And somehow, I don't know how but, I imagine those vibrations don't disappear when the physical body turns into dust. So that's my energetic contribution! Or, at least I danced with gratitude.

(Is this more along the lines of what you were asking me about, Systematic? What do you think/feel?)

Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 2:18 pm
There are no morals in evolution. It's just a biological mechanism. It doesn't "care" about kindness, and isn't even capable of doing so.

There are no morals in natural selection; in selective breeding, there are. If I were given the option, I would prefer selective breeding for intelligence rather than the lack thereof. I don't hate the disabled. It's just that, given the option between becoming disabled or not, I would choose not to become disabled. Now I'm going politically incorrect.

I was using this logic:

It seems like the institutions, that subscribe to a moral imperative, inevitably end up insisting on that imperative.
AND
Insisting on an imperative over hundreds or thousands of years can incrementally cause synthetic selection (also known as breeding).

THEREFORE
Create a moral imperative which is idealistic, and stick with it for centuries.

There are several what we choose to call disabilities. Is psychopathy a disability? Downs syndrome? Autism? What should be the criterion for disability?

Systematic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:52 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:06 am

Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:27 am
To paraphrase Voltaire: If the English had one religion, they would have dogmatism. If the English had two religions, there would be war. But since the English have a plethora of religions, there is peace.

The English have had at least 4 civil wars, one via inheritied kingship - steven vs empress maud, the others were in effect over the tribes of Christianity. Catholic vs Church of England (not prot in reality, but just Catholic centered on London rather than Rome (hist revised as Protestant in today's history books)


1. Harold vs William
2. Maud vs Steven
3. Simon de Montfort vs.......?
4. Richard 2 vs Wat Tyler
5. Richard 3 vs Henry 7th
6. Charles 1st vs Cromwell
7. James 2 vs Parlament.

------------
so my bad 7 civil wars in England.

Wars fought for the lack of reconciliation of two opposing ideals?

WRT to the "civil wars" above, none of them were due to actual differences in ideals.

1/2 were over politics, the other 1/2 was over concepts of personal liberty in the face of absolute naked power via Devine Right concepts of the time.

1,2,5,6,7 were the prior.

3, and 4 the latter.

and so after review i amend my above, 3/4's were over politics, and 1/4 were over irreconsilible opposing ideals/ideas.

I'm not a Brit BTW I'm an American. FYI.

Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:27 am That was really the point for which I was aiming.

I missed your point, my appologies.

thanks for reply.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:28 pm

Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:50 pm Did we evolve from apes? Most likely yes. But that's no excuse to be cruel in default.

Actually, it very much is.

Apes, even the "higher" ones, like chimpanzees, have absolutely vicious hierarchies of "survival of the fittest." The end of the lead chimp is often by being ripped apart by the next rival or two. The females are totally promiscuous and unselective, and vicious competition determines reproduction. They kill infants, cannabalize each other, assault, brutalize, "murder" and calculate against each other freely. Their default is viciousness, and co-operation is always merely strategic and temporary. Chimps have no loyalties, no duties, and no moral axioms.

Now, from an evolutionary perspective, if that's the "partner that brung ya" this far, there is a need for a logical reason not to continue with that "partner." Apparently, according to the evolutionary story, viciousness has eventually deposited us at the top of the food chain and in control of this entire planet. To abandon a strategy so successful for us...well, we'd need a reason to do that, for sure. In fact, we'd need an "excuse" not to.

So we've got our excuse to be cruel. Not that we need one, since evolution is not a morally-indexed process, but one driven merely by whatever produces survival. What works, works: no more can be said. No "excuses" need be offered, because there's nothing morally above us to which we might need to be "excused" anyway.

So "kindness"? What the heck is that, and why would we think we, in some sense, "owed" it to be kind? What we ought to do, evolutionarily, is just get away with whatever we can. Success is its own justification, then. Be ostensibly "moral" when it suits you to be, then stick the knife in when you get the chance...that's maximal opportunity-taking, with the best evolutionary outcome for you -- you rise to the top of the order.

And if a person can't live like that, what is he doing in a world driven by evolution? He's clearly not fit for it.

But humans don't evolve via the biological channel. We evolve through the cultural channel rather like tame animals. Tame animals yes, but with a lot more ability to free ourselves from unwanted biological reactions. We owe it to ourselves to be kind ; as what defines the human is seeking the larger goal instead of immediate gratification.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:20 am But humans don't evolve via the biological channel.

So you don't believe Darwin? You think human beings were never lower animals, such as chimp-like creatures, or amphibious entities, or some kind of pond scum in the Primordial Soup? Instead, your view is that they came into existence fully culturally developed and ready for further cultural development?

I'm just trying to figure out how you could suppose that on an Evolutionistic theory. You must be thinking of some special creation. It's certainly not Evolutionism.

We owe it to ourselves to be kind ; as what defines the human is seeking the larger goal instead of immediate gratification.

How do we "owe" anything to ourselves? Moreover, how is it you say we "owe" anything to anyone else, either, whether kindness or whatever? Why should I pursue a "larger goal" if my immediate goal pleases me more, and is much more available to me, and gives me an immediate survival advantage?

You'd sure need to prove that, especially if you still want to say Evolutionism is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:20 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:20 am But humans don't evolve via the biological channel.

So you don't believe Darwin? You think human beings were never lower animals, such as chimp-like creatures, or amphibious entities, or some kind of pond scum in the Primordial Soup? Instead, your view is that they came into existence fully culturally developed and ready for further cultural development?

I'm just trying to figure out how you could suppose that on an Evolutionistic theory. You must be thinking of some special creation. It's certainly not Evolutionism.

We owe it to ourselves to be kind ; as what defines the human is seeking the larger goal instead of immediate gratification.

How do we "owe" anything to ourselves? Moreover, how is it you say we "owe" anything to anyone else, either, whether kindness or whatever? Why should I pursue a "larger goal" if my immediate goal pleases me more, and is much more available to me, and gives me an immediate survival advantage?

You'd sure need to prove that, especially if you still want to say Evolutionism is true.

Humans did evolve by natural selection but not any more. Humans now evolve through cultural practices such as birth control, genocide, wars, social class systems. It's possible some natural selection still goes on but this is a very slow process whereas cultural change is faster.

You too, Immanuel, owe it to yourself to examine your life and live it as well as you can. I gather from your posts you feel you do so by adhering to a religion.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:12 pm Humans did evolve by natural selection but not any more.

How did Darwinian evolution cease, then? What changed?

Humans now evolve through cultural practices such as birth control, genocide, wars, social class systems.

And you don't regard those as a product of the natural world? So now you've got two types of entity going on...the strictly Materialist (Darwinian evolution) plus the totally-artificial-human (such as the things you list)?

It's possible some natural selection still goes on but this is a very slow process whereas cultural change is faster.

Well, "change" is not automatically "evolution." It could well be "devolution," or just stasis. You would need to show that we have been culturally evolving, moving forward in a positive direction. What evidence would you offer to the 148 million people killed in the last century that the human race is progressing morally right now? Would you point to what has been happening in the streets of certain Western cities lately? Would you refer them to the migrant crisis, COVID or the economic situation worldwide? What would you point to?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:22 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:12 pm Humans did evolve by natural selection but not any more.

How did Darwinian evolution cease, then? What changed?

Humans now evolve through cultural practices such as birth control, genocide, wars, social class systems.

And you don't regard those as a product of the natural world? So now you've got two types of entity going on...the strictly Materialist (Darwinian evolution) plus the totally-artificial-human (such as the things you list)?

It's possible some natural selection still goes on but this is a very slow process whereas cultural change is faster.

Well, "change" is not automatically "evolution." It could well be "devolution," or just stasis. You would need to show that we have been culturally evolving, moving forward in a positive direction. What evidence would you offer to the 148 million people killed in the last century that the human race is progressing morally right now? Would you point to what has been happening in the streets of certain Western cities lately? Would you refer them to the migrant crisis, COVID or the economic situation worldwide? What would you point to?

You are mistaken evolution by natural selection is "moving forward in a positive direction". Natural selection is not powered by final cause. Natural selection is powered by two components: random mutations and struggle for existence. There is nothing there about directedness.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:49 pm Natural selection is not powered by final cause. Natural selection is powered by two components: random mutations and struggle for existence. There is nothing there about directedness.

Then you have no warrant for the blithe faith in "cultural evolution." We're still locked in the "struggle for existence" with the weak dying behind the strong. And as you say, there's no "directness" in that...though I presume you must mean "direction."