For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
What evidence could you give them that your supreme being, who watched it happen is good because he did nothing to stop it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:22 pmWhat evidence would you offer to the 148 million people killed in the last century that the human race is progressing morally right now?
YImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:52 amThen 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."
I'm not so in love with the adventure in life; but rather, I'm in love with the potential for accomplishment. If I could figure out how, I would be like Elon Musk or like Steve Jobs or like Leonardo DaVinci. The best I know about at the moment is epistemology, so I intend to push that further if I can.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:26 pmIn 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!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?
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!
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?)
Well, all of that could be fascinating. I think being a homeless wandering sage could be fascinating with the right attitude. (I was barefoot and homeless at the beach for a brief time when I was 19 -- and that produced some interesting insights and stories.) At the same time, every path has its own challenges, pressures, and torments. Personally, I like striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience (no matter what the circumstances are), which may become more challenging in our changing world, but that's just life. If I ever have to leave everything behind that I've created/built and hit the road... I could do that. Then that would become my adventure. Spirit is something that no one destroys.Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:39 am If I could figure out how, I would be like Elon Musk or like Steve Jobs or like Leonardo DaVinci. The best I know about at the moment is epistemology, so I intend to push that further if I can.
Love it.Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:39 amHowever, Nietzsche quote: You have your way. I have my way. As for the right and correct way, it does not exist.
The question is, "Is survival of the fittest still what's going on?" Because you say that "Humans now evolve through cultural practices such as birth control, genocide, wars, social class systems."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:55 pmThe question is, "Is survival of the fittest still what's going on?" Because you say that "Humans now evolve through cultural practices such as birth control, genocide, wars, social class systems."
But no, no they don't; not if Darwin was right, and survival of the fittest is how things evolve. In fact, those things themselves would just be other artifacts of Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest would still be how things are evolving.
Natural selection is not evidence of social Darwinism. This is because biological change is not the same as social change.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:16 pmNo, this is Darwin's claim...and if you believe Darwin, it's your claim too.
Not "evidence," its his central proposed mechanism. It's his way of answering the question, "How?" Without it, Evolutionism doesn't have a means to work at all.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:35 pmNatural selection is not evidence of social Darwinism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:16 pmNo, this is Darwin's claim...and if you believe Darwin, it's your claim too.
"Change" is not the issue. Evolution is. Evolution is the idea of "change that is necessarily for the better." And it needs an explanation of how it works. But you deny the mechanism Darwin said powered evolution? It seems so...This is because biological change is not the same as social change.
Not "Social Darwinists," Belinda...just Darwinists of your kind -- assuming you still believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. "Social Darwinism" is a natural extrapolation of that ideology, it's true; but it's not the one we're talking about here.Social Darwinists' purpose was and is to try to legitimate aggression involving the rich and powerful.
Immanuel, if you believe the more powerful peoples are biologically evolved to be more powerful people you are a social Darwinist.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:48 pmNot "evidence," its his central proposed mechanism. It's his way of answering the question, "How?" Without it, Evolutionism doesn't have a means to work at all.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:35 pmNatural selection is not evidence of social Darwinism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:16 pm
No, this is Darwin's claim...and if you believe Darwin, it's your claim too.
"Change" is not the issue. Evolution is. Evolution is the idea of "change that is necessarily for the better." And it needs an explanation of how it works. But you deny the mechanism Darwin said powered evolution? It seems so...This is because biological change is not the same as social change.
Not "Social Darwinists," Belinda...just Darwinists of your kind -- assuming you still believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. "Social Darwinism" is a natural extrapolation of that ideology, it's true; but it's not the one we're talking about here.Social Darwinists' purpose was and is to try to legitimate aggression involving the rich and powerful.
Do you believe in Evolutionism? Or do you say Darwin was a quack?
I don't know. I don't know what the epithet means. Among a few other beliefs I believe in evolution by natural selection.I also believe in human evolution by cultural beliefs and practices.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:42 pmI don't.
Darwin does.
And if you're a Darwinian, you do too.
Are you a Darwinian?
The former is the basic natural process. The second is an imaginary process that human beings hope is happening, without sufficient reason to think it is. That's the difference: there's at least the pretext of "scientific relevance" for the first one, and nothing at all for the second.
I note you claim Darwin was a social Darwinist.
OK, I think I may have hit on a win/win agreement (a win for you and a win for me). Instead of questioning your personal philosophy (e.g. telling you that you are wrong, and starting a long argument), like a staunch skeptic, let's just assume that you are correct. Striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience is what it's all about! And I would like you to continue to explain what that means without doubting it. Just assume that you are correct. It's a win for me, because I think that staunch skepticism is anathema to a rational discussion of what might be true. And I think it would be a win for you to have someone listen rather than denying. Would you like to continue describing? Or is that not what you want?Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:38 pmWell, all of that could be fascinating. I think being a homeless wandering sage could be fascinating with the right attitude. (I was barefoot and homeless at the beach for a brief time when I was 19 -- and that produced some interesting insights and stories.) At the same time, every path has its own challenges, pressures, and torments. Personally, I like striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience (no matter what the circumstances are), which may become more challenging in our changing world, but that's just life. If I ever have to leave everything behind that I've created/built and hit the road... I could do that. Then that would become my adventure. Spirit is something that no one destroys.Systematic wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:39 am If I could figure out how, I would be like Elon Musk or like Steve Jobs or like Leonardo DaVinci. The best I know about at the moment is epistemology, so I intend to push that further if I can.
Frankly, I don't care what a disability is. You can treat them with respect; and, I would argue, you should do so. I'm more concerned with ability and breeding that characteristic. And with allowing it to flourish. It's not a zero-sum game, as far as I'm concerned.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:43 pmThere are several what we choose to call disabilities. Is psychopathy a disability? Downs syndrome? Autism? What should be the criterion for disability?Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:05 pmThere 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.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.
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.