Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal philosophy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    To believe that human life is nothing more than a bunch if molecules arranged in a certain way trying to duplicate themselves.... Is to take an extremely shallow view of the situation, to say the least.

    But if your statement is not meant to exclude other meanings for living, then I would agree with what you're saying. Survival is certainly the strongest instinct a person can have. Survival is first for yourself, then for your genes (making kids), then to make sure those living genes survive (protecting the kids and grand kids), then to make sure your ideas or memes survive.
    The first bit is the purpose of the body. The last bit is a human goal, created by the mind.
    But no, the purpose of existence isn't just reproduction. It just happens to be the purpose of the bodies we inhabit. The purpose of the mind is far more intricate, individual and undecipherable than that.

    The purpose of existence as a whole? I have no idea. Not even a starting-point. I like to think existence is just there for the fun of it.
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
      Miguel, can you define the following terms for me?

      I am curious how you see the following:

      Class
      Race
      Gender
      Family
      Culture
      Economy
      Freedom
      Violence
      Class-->Artificial classification of individuals according to socioeconomic issues
      Race-->Artificial classification of individuals according to minor genetical differences
      Gender-->Natural differentiation of individuals according to reproductive issues
      Family-->Half natural half artificial social organization
      Culture-->Shared knowledge and customs of a human collective
      Economy-->Sum of all economical exchanges
      Freedom-->Illusion where individuals don't see any barriers to their decisions
      Violence-->Natural human response to some situations

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
        I'm going to guess that he means when you examine morals and ethics long enough, you come to find out that there are almost no organic morals or ethics at all. They're mostly all human-made.
        Mostly? Ultimately none of them makes sense at all, no even the golden rule or the categorical imperative, according to logic anyway.

        What surprises me is the context of his answer.

        Comment


        • #79
          I don't know about you, but I pretty much eat, sleep, fu**, worship and philosophize the way I please. And where society and I disagree, I go my own way. I figure if it works, other people might emulate it, and if it fails, I've learned something and the people watching me have a fantastic opportunity to feel superior. Win-win.

          Eating organic, raising chickens, composting, recycling, smartphones, the internet, interracial marriage, flying machines, church services that weren't in Latin--these were all crazy ideas rejected by a society which then watched others attempt the impossible, succeed, thrive, and prosper, and now it's mainstream. That's just how life is. Not all of society is going to be risk-taking visionaries. Most of us are lackadaisical couch (sweet) potatoes. Don't like how things are? Go do it different. We'll follow you if your ideas are better than our couches.

          Comment


          • #80
            Sorry, who are you replying fitmom?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Kochin View Post
              The first bit is the purpose of the body. The last bit is a human goal, created by the mind.
              But no, the purpose of existence isn't just reproduction. It just happens to be the purpose of the bodies we inhabit. The purpose of the mind is far more intricate, individual and undecipherable than that.

              The purpose of existence as a whole? I have no idea. Not even a starting-point. I like to think existence is just there for the fun of it.
              It depends upon the kind of idea. If the idea helps other people survive and live better lives, then I see it as the biggest extension of reproducing yourself. With each step on that list I wrote, the people you affect can be thought of as your circle, and each step makes your circle bigger and bigger.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                It depends upon the kind of idea. If the idea helps other people survive and live better lives, then I see it as the biggest extension of reproducing yourself. With each step on that list I wrote, the people you affect can be thought of as your circle, and each step makes your circle bigger and bigger.
                Well, that IS my final purpose in this world, to be honest: genetic world domination...
                And everyone shall be linked back to me and my fiance and we'll be known as the Adam and Eve of our era.

                Anyone with me for giving-up their unborn children in marriage to my unborn children and creating a master-race?
                --
                Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

                --
                I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
                I'd apologize, but...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Good one, that philosophy is flawed to death, but otherwise it's quite original (though I've already thought of that).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Miguelinileugim View Post
                    Good one, that philosophy is flawed to death, but otherwise it's quite original (though I've already thought of that).
                    Surely you want your kids to reproduce with one of the 'Primally chosen ones'? Master-race! World supremacy! I'll supply the weddings with a whole leg of Serrano ham per person!
                    --
                    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

                    --
                    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
                    I'd apologize, but...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Miguelinileugim View Post
                      Mostly? Ultimately none of them makes sense at all, no even the golden rule or the categorical imperative, according to logic anyway.

                      What surprises me is the context of his answer.
                      There are some morals that make sense evolutionarily. Some morals can lead to greater success in reproduction, survival, and growth as a species.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                        There are some morals that make sense evolutionarily. Some morals can lead to greater success in reproduction, survival, and growth as a species.
                        Surprisingly, morality is one of the few things that shouldn't be seen with an evolutive perspective, it's not like we have a "moral gene" anywhere, though maybe a pseudo-morality according to evolution for emotional reasons would be a good idea.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Miguelinileugim View Post
                          Surprisingly, morality is one of the few things that shouldn't be seen with an evolutive perspective, it's not like we have a "moral gene" anywhere, though maybe a pseudo-morality according to evolution for emotional reasons would be a good idea.
                          Take a step back and think about what a moral is. It's a belief. Do you believe you should live or die? If you believe the former, you carry an evolutionarily-advantageous meme/moral/belief.

                          That was too obvious. There are others. Do you believe in dominating other people or co-existing with them? Dominating nature or co-existing? The dominating options were so evolutionarily advantageous that the culture of the people who created them grew from just a few original tribes in the Middle East to now cover almost the entire globe.

                          That's the past though. What about the future? I think the most evolutionarily advantageous memes are related to science and technology. If humans are able to become inter-galactic beings, it will be because of those memes.

                          Take technology, science, domination of nature and other people.... What do you get? Essentially, power and knowledge. Knowledge IS power, as the saying goes, so it is really all about power to understand and thus control one's surroundings. Do this, and you will have the best chance of surviving.

                          Morals survive and morals die based upon the believers of these morals. The evolutionarily advantageous morals are the ones that get replicated onto other people by the original believer before he dies.
                          Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-09-2013, 02:07 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Take a step back and think about what a moral is. It's a belief. Do you believe you should live or die? If you believe the former, you carry an evolutionarily-advantageous meme/moral/belief.

                            That was too obvious. There are others. Do you believe in dominating other people or co-existing with them? Dominating nature or co-existing? The dominating options were so evolutionarily advantageous that the culture of the people who created them grew from just a few original tribes in the Middle East to now cover almost the entire globe.

                            That's the past though. What about the future? I think the most evolutionarily advantageous memes are related to science and technology. If humans are able to become inter-galactic beings, it will be because of those memes.

                            Take technology, science, domination of nature and other people.... What do you get? Essentially, power and knowledge. Knowledge IS power, as the saying goes, so it is really all about power to understand and thus control one's surroundings. Do this, and you will have the best chance of surviving.

                            Morals survive and morals die based upon the believers of these morals. The evolutionarily advantageous morals are the ones that get replicated onto other people by the original believer before he dies.
                            Yes, I agree with everything. However, I'm speaking about your OWN moral/belief system, which doesn't have to do with evolution as it's yours for the sake of your own happiness.

                            Let's put it this way, imagine that you had the choice between having a thousand kids through a life of suffering, or not having any through a life of happiness and longevity. According to evolution, you should choose the first option, according to you and your happiness, you should choose the second one.

                            So, your moral/belief system should be made for the sake of your happiness, not for the sake of evolution. Who cares about what makes more evolutive sense!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Miguelinileugim View Post
                              Yes, I agree with everything. However, I'm speaking about your OWN moral/belief system, which doesn't have to do with evolution as it's yours for the sake of your own happiness.

                              Let's put it this way, imagine that you had the choice between having a thousand kids through a life of suffering, or not having any through a life of happiness and longevity. According to evolution, you should choose the first option, according to you and your happiness, you should choose the second one.

                              So, your moral/belief system should be made for the sake of your happiness, not for the sake of evolution. Who cares about what makes more evolutive sense!
                              So now we're talking about happiness. There's still an evolutionary basis for what will make us happy. For instance, you eating good food and getting laid will make you happy. Evolutionarily, these two pleasures are there to make sure you eat healthily and reproduce.

                              There is a flip side of course. Some people get happy by killing other people. That's certainly evolutionarily-poor for people around this person. The human brain is smart enough that we are one of, if not the only, species that is capable of doing things that are bad for our survival.

                              I know you're trying to say that morals are all about this flowery poems that have no basis in reality or evolution. I would say look at the actual content, and you will find a lot of it applicable to evolution.

                              PS- morals are about what is important, not what is joyful. To discuss what is important, any hard-thinker will certainly search for evolutionarily-valid points.
                              Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-09-2013, 03:47 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                                So now we're talking about happiness. There's still an evolutionary basis for what will make us happy. For instance, you eating good food and getting laid will make you happy. Evolutionarily, these two pleasures are there to make sure you eat healthily and reproduce.

                                There is a flip side of course. Some people get happy by killing other people. That's certainly evolutionarily-poor for people around this person. The human brain is smart enough that we are one of, if not the only, species that is capable of doing things that are bad for our survival.

                                I know you're trying to say that morals are all about this flowery poems that have no basis in reality or evolution. I would say look at the actual content, and you will find a lot of it applicable to evolution.

                                PS- morals are about what is important, not what is joyful. To discuss what is important, any hard-thinker will certainly search for evolutionarily-valid points.
                                Yes, I agree that morality can be understood through the lenses of evolution.

                                But, you said that morals is about what is important, not what is joyful, but is there a difference between the latter and the former? What do you think is important in life other than happiness?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X