| Goeniko | 05-30-11, 7:48 AM I've been suffering from depression lately and have become far more... melancholic. With the fact that Memorial Day was brought to my attention, I end up writing something along the lines of this to the person I was talking to so I figured I'd share it so I can vent myself out: I've never really highly valued commemorations for soldiers.Though I do find that dead soldiers mean a lot to those who know of others under service. Ironic, really, how such people criticize others for their lack of caring for men in arms. But really, they're nothing but tools for the government and no soldier is ever wrong. It's always a fight between two rights. I feel our overall worth is fairly minimal, really. Especially mine..... i suppose it's safe to say... In society, there's some people with the view that there things more valuable than life... And to others, nothing preferable but life.I, oddly, feel like purely made lubricate stuck between such arguments. I don't feel strongly about much of life. I'm pessimistic about many things... I find it odd, really, how a vast knowledge of reality really gives a large gateway to pessimism. Is it ironic that those of more naive beliefs of the world are far more optimistic and pleased with the world than they should be? I'm starting to ponder... Can knowledge be an issue? Damn, just look at me... All melancholic and shit. What am I talking about? expression is a powerful thing I suppose. I've always loved how we're grown to believe that our value is all equal to one another...only to realize that's far from the truth when we get older. Childhood is so full of lies..can't even fathom myself as a father. So much fucking responsibility. Goddamn... Awashima | 05-30-11, 10:43 AM Yes its true that when one questions reality like philosophers do, they find truth and can make life seem very negative. In a way I think its like a punishment. I'm christian so my views might not agree to yours depending on your religion. But when to me, before Adam and Eve at the fruit of knowledge, they knew all the answers to the questions that philosophers struggle with. They however did not know the questions to those answers. But they were happy because the fruit of knowledge showed them misery. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they "lost" all the answers and was stuck with all the questions. And now when we question reality and come to an answer to what life really is about we are "punished" for finding an answer to those questions we gained from the fruit. Our punishment is the pessimism that follows with the realization of reality. But again this is only my interpretation of how knowledge is. And with your idea about soldiers, the thing is some people really don't have a choice, they are forced into the army because of the government. I understand that if people volunteered to join the army then maybe its their fault. But I also think that if a government is going to send people into war, and then say to people that they are sorry for getting your son/daughter killed in battle and have a day for remembering those deaths that the government should have just not send people to war to being with. Its rather ridiculous. It's like kicking someone on purpose and then saying sorry. A person's worth, I believe, is proportional to the amount of "good" deeds in which the person does. Though "good" is a very vague term. "good" in this sense would probably mean something that benefits society in some way. No matter how small of a benefit. Like helping someone cross the road is a good deed. But one can also argue that everyone's worth is the same under the "eyes of god". And to tell you the truth, I'm a very pessimistic person, I was even tested (its this psychology thing). I sort of accept who I am and move on though, there isn't a lot you can do when its who you are. Lazhward | 05-30-11, 3:34 PM I find it disturbing that people seem to believe that knowledge leads them to despair. Isn't philosophy (love of wisdom) meant to make the world better by providing answers to those questions Awashima is referring to? I think it's as simple as saying that we're spoiled with all kinds of beautiful lies, and we're let down when the truth doesn't exceed our expectations. We want to believe the world is as perfect as some of our arts and religions make it seem, and we can't step down from those because we're afraid for anything less. Instead of having our expectations up so high we should be appreciating the world for how beautiful it already is, and not hope for something greater when there's no proof of such a thing. So stop hoping for gods, miracles and paradise, because we wouldn't know about them even if they did exist. Instead look outside and be amazed with the beauty of nature, the vastness of the universe and the mysteries of science. These are the things we can know about and see and experience with our own eyes, so aprreciate what we have and stop hoping for more. The only thing you have to know is the difference between fantasy and reality, when you start to confuse these, that's when the world won't make sense anymore and the melancholy kicks in. Awashima | 05-30-11, 5:04 PM It's meant to make the world a better place, but the realization of just how imperfect this world is, and how full of evil is humanity that people start to wonder, "why do I even bother?" yes, it is true that people have high expectations which leads to disappointments which lead to some form of negative feeling whether depression or anger or pessimism. But I would think that it would be hard to enjoy how great the world already is when people are everywhere destroying the beauty of the world. You can't just acknowledge the beauty of the world and not acknowledge that humanity is destroying said beauty. Lazhward | 05-30-11, 8:09 PM I can't say I disagree with you, since I also don't think humanity is doing the right thing, but I think you should put everything into the right perspective. It is easy to say what is right and wrong when you base it off your emotions, and I wouldn't say that is wrong because that is basically the purpose of our emotions anyways. But what is really hard is to predict long-term effects of your own and humanity's actions. Making mistakes and doing wrong or bad things has its purposes, even though it can be hard to accept their existence. Because of this you should question whether 'bad' things really are 'bad' things, or that they serve the purpose of maintaining movement in the right direction. Basically, you cannot easily define right and wrong, so you can't say all the 'evil' in the world makes it less perfect. I think the existence of antitheses permits motion, evolution and progress, and that progress makes the world better. You also tend to make the mistake of putting humanity on one end and 'the rest of the universe' on the other. We humans are just as much part of the universe as anything else is, and if we were destroying it, that would mean the universe is destroying itself. Which is impossible of course, because matter and energy don't disappear, they merely change their shape. So the 'destruction' we humans cause can only be called 'change' when viewed from the perspective of the universe in its entirety. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with change, it's probably the most important thing in the universe. So basically the change in perspective I was talking about comes down to; there is no right and wrong when it comes to the existence of the universe. It doesn't matter in what condition it exists or whether there are humans or life on earth. The universe will be here even without us, and we can only be grateful that we've come to exist and experience great things. And yes there will also be a lot of bad things happening, but eventually that will make us stronger as a person, as a species and maybe humanity will someday be living the 'right' way, being humble towards nature and grateful for life. Awashima | Yesterday, 12:38 AM True, it is because we have problems and conflicts, we are able to find new ways to do things, invent things, and make things better. But I think that in the world we are in right now there are too many problems and too little people trying to solve the problems. and yes the moral sense is based on our emotions and that there is no objective evil in this world. The problem is that people, i believe, are inherently evil. That humanity causes problems in the world because it is just who we are. If these "bad" things are help moving humanity in the right direction, then I don't agree with the direction it is heading towards, because all I see at the end of the road that humanity has set is death and destruction of civilization. yes humanity is part of the universe, but we are also perhaps the only beings that realizes that there is a universe. Perhaps, the world "destroying" the universe might not be the best word. And yes perhaps all that is happening is change not destruction. But I would think that not all change is for the better. Change might be the most important thing in the universe, it allows for things to happen, it allows for something new. But new is not always better. Sadly the world in which people would make the "right" decisions and make the world a better place for everyone and everything does not exist other than in fairy tales. People have greed, lust, and many other state of minds that conflict with "the right way". And yes perhaps the world will still exist if there were no life to observe it. But I'd like to think of existences as a quantum event. It is only there because it is observed. Unless observed, everything and nothing can happen. But to be honest, humanity isn't going to last long. Unless something changes in the mentality of humanity as a whole, everything is going to go down hill. Kaiserpingvin | Yesterday, 4:23 AM >but we are also perhaps the only beings that realizes that there is a universe "Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." Bill Hicks, the greatest of philosophers. selective_yellow | Yesterday, 4:35 AM >But to be honest, humanity isn't going to last long. Unless something changes in the mentality of humanity as a whole, everything is going to go down hill. But humanity has only been here for 6000 years or so! Do you think we will last another 6000? Or less? :< kataranara420 | Yesterday, 5:01 AM Ohh... I joined automatically when I saw the title. Philosophy in an anime is a huge plus! So... I was just reading through the comment thread. No, I do not think humans will last another 6k years. I know i'm just jumping in right now, but I have my reasons. We've advanced so far that I don't think we can go any further. Sure, flying cars, AI Robots, and stuff were just sci-fi from the 70's and 80's. But sadly, it has never been realized. I think we are at are peak and can only go down from there.... or maybe stay at a level until our species is wiped away. Nothing really lasts forever. However, there is something to be said for wanting to advance humans to a level where all can sustain clean and healthy lives. If that were possible maybe then we could finally find world peace. Awashima | Yesterday, 5:03 AM > But humanity has only been here for 6000 years or so! Do you think we will last another 6000? Or less? :< I sort of doubt humanity is going to last another 6000 years. With the way things are going, the decline in oil, and raise in economic instability, etc. If people don't find a way to better the world in practical terms like fuel efficiency or alternative fuels. But the mentality of humanity is getting worse and worse, we had people cheering for the death of someone in the streets in the US. If that is allowed, if people can celebrate the deaths of others then this world is going to end. >Kaiserpingvin yes, we are all just small little atoms that combine together which creates an object. There is never any objectivity in life, that's we have something called emotion. If that wasn't present and we just live by pure reason, then everything would be objective. Life could be a dream But as the philosopher René Descartes once said, I think, therefore I am. We all exist, at least our "soul" or what ever you want to call it exists. Perhaps everything else is a dream and not reality, but we ourselves, our mind exist. There is no life without death, without death everything is just an experience. But perhaps what we see as death isn't really death but rather a change of "realm" from this "realm" to the next. But whatever it is without it there is no such thing as life. Even if life was a dream, death is present so the dream can end. >Kataranara420 I don't really think that there is such a peak. I'm sure there is always something more to be discovered or to be invented and created. I think humanity isn't going to go down from here because of the lack of anything new to be created but rather the mentality of humanity is so far down the gutter that its improbable that it could rebound from that and start anew. I believe that end of humanity is due to the lack of morality in humanity even though they claim the have morals. Lazhward | 6 hours ago I'll start by saying that humans have been around for 200,000 years already, not 6000, and in those 200,000 years we've survived greater disasters and lesser morality than we're facing now. If we could withstand it then, surely we can do it now, and not only because of better technology, but mainly because of humanities greater numbers. There are 6 billion people living on our planet, you won't be able to imagine how many people that are (just watch Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu). An enormous disaster such as the great earthquake in Japan recently cost 300,000 people their lives, tragic as it is, this is only 1/20,000th of the entire world population. In order for humanity to die out, there would have to be some unimaginable event. In other words, man kind will probably survive for as long as earth itself. The main strength of humans is their flexibility and adaptability, when things start to take a turn for the worst humans will find a way and make changes when necessary. Problems nowadays are blown out of proportion, global warming will not wipe out the planet's species, there is this thing called evolution. Yes it'll cause problems and should be stopped, but it's not the end of the world. Low morality? When has human morality been high then? When Incas sacrificed lesser humans for their gods? When the Romans conquered europe and enslaved all 'barbarians'? Or was it during WWII? People have always been celebrating other people's deaths. You can hope for everyone to be 'good', but as I said before this won't work. There has to be some sort of balance, bad things make good things able to exist. Awashima said so himself (tehe), 'there is no life without death'. So even though it may seem I'm just proving the point that life sucks, what I'm really trying to say is, is it really all that bad? You may think there's a lot wrong with the world, but really there isn't. Death, destruction, aggression, greed, competition etc. are all part of this universe, and they're all needed to maintain it. Instead of saying it's bad, accept the fact they exist and try to keep it under control. Saying people are inherently bad is a really sad thing to say, but saying everyone is inherently good isn't necessarily true either. People consist of both good and bad things, which I think would make them inherently neutral. But from a biological perspective, every human serves the purpose of survival of our species, for that neutrality is probably the best, so if you look at it like that we'd still be inherently good. 'Good' isn't all good, the best thing is the middle road which consists of both good and bad. So of course there will never be a paradise, but I think the world is perfect as it is, as long as we can enjoy it. Awashima | 4 hours ago A very nice argument using my idea haha.Yes there is no good without bad, peace without war. Yes some unimaginable event. This event is probably nuclear winter. Why do we have the moral sense when we all end up choosing the bad choice? But adaptability I think is rather selective. Why are people depressed? Why don't they adapt to depression? But instead we can adapt to happiness. The act of adapting is dependent on one's ability to accept reality it would seem. No matter how adaptive people are, if they don't accept it then they won't be able to adapt. I still think that people are inherently bad. Mostly because people can only think about themselves. We don't have the ability to "read minds". We can't know what other people are thinking unless they tell others, but that's never what they actually think because language is very ambiguous. We self-preserve. Perhaps the world is fine as it is, but it could be better. Lazhward | 4 minutes ago @Awashima It may seem strange, but I doubt even nuclear winter will exterminate mankind. We have shelters, and radiation usually doesn't kill instantly. Mutations and deformations caused by DNA damage will eventually be reduced to mere handicaps through natural selection, and also not be lethal. And as I said, people will change in times of need, so nuclear war will probably stop before it's too late, to protect themselves. But, I'm no expert in the effects of nuclear warfare so you could be right, let's just hope it'll never come to that. I read the part about adaptability on your profile, and also the part about abnormalities. I found it interesting since you're absolutely right, but I draw an entirely different conclusion from the same information. We get used to happiness and then return to a state of neutrality, with a good reason though. I've pointed out the importance of change in my philosophy, because change permits evolution which causes progression. If I can become truly happy with a certain state, I won't progress any further and not come closer to the top, because I would want to maintain that state. Now this top is non-existent as we both seem to agree on, it's hypothetical but a goal none the less. Envy is a part of this process, as it takes the entire standard to a new level and let's individuals progress further from that. Take your example of the cars, everyone with a crappy car buys a new one, then people will start to buy even better ones to become happy again and so we progress (in car-quality). I think the problem is not with the system, but how it is applied. This progress wil only take place when everyone has an equal chance to progress, otherwise we won't reach the same level which causes further progression. So in order to progress we should always try to improve and aim for perfection (even though it's not reachable), and compete equally amongst eachother to push ourselves in the right direction and reach a higher state together. It is painfully obvious there are no equal chances in modern society though, which prevents us from doing so. I also like what you say about self-preservation, again, I think you're absolutely right. But the problem seems to be with the inability to communicate, not the intention to communicate. People are bad if they're unwilling to understand another, I think that's true, but this doesn't apply when people try to communicate but are limited by the short-comings of our language (and bodies). The fact that we developed language actually proves our willingness to communicate and understand each-other, and we're constantly developing new ways to communicate constantly. Being sociable is trying to understand others in order to progress as a whole, and if you have the need to communicate with others, I believe you're a good person. You should check out the Necomimi from Neurowear. May seem like a silly gadget, but if further developed could add a whole new dimension to facial expression and improve communication, lol =P |
| "The view from the bottom of a well may not be much, but you can see the sky and the stars really well. My world is small, but since I'm looking up at space night after night, you could say I'm a frog on a universal scale. When you gaze up at space all alone like that, the back of your mind goes quiet, and you feel as though you've gained an extraordinary amount of wisdom." |
I'll start by saying that humans have been around for 200,000 years already, not 6000, and in those 200,000 years we've survived greater disasters and lesser morality than we're facing now Congrats. |
| Yes radiation doesn't kill instantly, but massive exposure can cause so much problems that people would wish they were dead. Yes we do have shelters, but do you really think there is enough space to fit 6billion people in those shelters? And I think that if this actually happens people will go into survival instincts and abandon others. People are so stubborn and not willing to admit defeat that I'm pretty sure if a nuclear war were to start it wouldn't end until there is a definitive winner. Sadly, not a lot of people read them, or at least don't comment on them if they do read it haha. Everyone wants to stay in the same state. We all want to stay happy. And one way to do that is by taking the happiness away from another. I think that, that's what it is in the end, in order for someone to be happy someone else will in turn be unhappy. Yes, change is necessary, but it is not always desirable. Is it not possible to stay happy and get happier? why do we have to adapt to it to being with? Because without adapting we wouldn't try to reach higher? If everyone could just stay happy and not adapt to it wouldn't the world be a much better place? No ambitious people going and wrecking everything just so he/she could be happy. But I guess that's just how this world is isn't it? People compete against each other trying to be the best but there is always someone better. We created language not because of the willingness to communicate but rather because it is a necessity. There are things that someone people just can't do alone. You can't build a house alone unless you spend like half your life doing it, but by then there is no point. I think language was created because it was necessary to do so for the preservation of the species. People try to find new ways of communication for the sake of convenience. They created phones in order to talk to people more efficiently rather than having to go find the person and talk to them. Everyone has a need to communicate to others, because we are social beings and because people can't do everything on their own (though I'd rather try do everything on my own then ask someone for help). I don't think just because we have the need to communicate means we are good. People like con artists have the need to communicate for their "work" but are they good? I doubt it. |
| Well, after reading through all of these, and agreeing, and disagreeing, with a lot, I have come to a temporary, and rather debatable, conclusion. I agree that humanity cannot be judged on good or evil, because that alone depends on the individuals perspective of "good" and "evil". This is true with anything when we are speaking of ethics, morality, and development. However, there is something that was bothering me the whole time I was reading, and it's a question that I had to put forth for debate, or at the very least add to this conversation. Like I said before, development of the human species, in my view, is stalling out. Sure, there are some inventions that have come around in the past decade or two that have made communication easier. Internet, cell phones, texting, web chat, video chat, etc. but I believe that the need to communicate, especially to ancient humans, was a need to understand. We are a species that puts so much stock into communications. Look at television, radio, and the internet! All because we wanted to communicate, not only locally, but globally! However, the question that I want to put out there, may have already been asked before, but I do not think it is answered. How can people really, truly understand one another? Is it even possible? This reminds me, since we are speaking of philosophy and this is an anime community, of what Pein said to Naruto. "People can only understand one another when they have felt the same pain." (or something along those lines.) Is that true? I mean, it makes sense. People that are victims of disasters and what not identify with one another and can cope together right? I mean, the tsunami in the pacific and the tsunami in indonesia, hurricane katrina, and many others. They can identify with one another and find a way, if any, to move on. Is that true understanding? Or, can we really learn to understand one another in other ways, through "bonds" and friendship? I mean, I've lived with my family my entire life, and I still don't understand a one of them. Does that mean it's impossible to know one another through friendship and family? This question bothers me. As for the world ending, which is another topic you touched on, I think it is completely possible, and expected, for the human race to be wiped away. Zombies, natural disaster, meteor, sickness, or maybe even by our own doing. It is entirely possible! In fact, I don't expect that the entire human race will be wiped away, but I think a majority should. Starting over, from square one would be entirely beneficial to both the human race and the earth. Perhaps that is unrealistic, but i never claimed to be realistic. |
 |
| There's always something more out there for us to find, to create, to destroy there is never an end in the amount of things that we can invent. So humanity has a lot more developing to do. There is a vast amount of space in this universe that has not been discovered yet. So no, development is not stalling out. People can only know themselves, even if we someone tries to tell their thoughts and feelings to someone else it is never what they are really feeling because words are ambiguous. Unless we can look into the minds of people not like mind reading but actually look into the mind of others there is no way we can understand other people. If I broke my arm and someone else broke their arm, I still wouldn't know the same pain they have felt. We make sense of what happened to us differently and so the pain we feel are different. Two people that are heartbroken because they were dumped, they don't feel the same pain. There is no such thing as the "same pain." Although similar, everything is unique and different. Sure, they can understand their pain are similar but its not the same. They still won't understand what someone else is feeling. The only we can understand is if we are all exactly identical, cognitively, biologically, and culturally. There is no such thing as the understanding of someone. You can only understand yourself and no one else. That is way things like heroism does not exist. There is no such thing as selflessness. Everyone has their own agenda and can only think for themselves. The only way to save the world from ending is the complete extinction of humanity. Haha. |
| I don't think that is entirely accurate. Though I do agree with your literal translation, you cannot literally know what someone else is feeling but you can still know their pain and identify with their problem. It will never be the same, but just knowing that you are not the only one suffering or feeling like this makes the connection to the person deeper, and you can know, even for a brief amount of time, their feelings, their "pain" so to speak. Physically it means nothing, as you said. As for development I still don't agree. Yes, there are things we haven't discovered in this universe, things that we need to discover, but the likelihood of the human race discovering even a fraction of it, is optimistic at best. Though there are things we have learned, and things that have yet to be learned, we cannot possibly be naive enough to presume that we can develop past our limit. What more can be easier? You want a cure for cancer and aids? That's impractical. It's a dear wish that would be marvelous to see in my lifetime, but it's presumptuous to believe there is such a thing. There are millions and billions of things we cannot understand, or begin to understand. Maybe these horrible diseases are part of those things. And if you still don't think we've developed to our limit, just look at the people around the world. Look at their sizes for one. Obese people in the millions, doing nothing but sitting in front of the computer, ordering food they don't even have to go out and find, and needing nothing but money and the air in their lungs. Is that not easy enough? (Granted, there are underdeveloped nations and regions that cannot enjoy this lifestyle that many westerners have come to enjoy. I should know how enjoyable it is. I'm not exactly starving. XD ) Also, look at the people around the world who are incompetent without their precious technology. Seriously? I mean, what if you woke up and there was no such thing as technology? You'd be literally at a loss. You wouldn't be able to survive. Some people have never seen a cow, but they eat a cheese burger. Some people have never seen wheat, but still eat the bread. Very few people on this earth have to work to actually eat their food. (I say very few though the exact number is probably larger due to starvation in underdeveloped countries.) Though, I can understand how you may thing that technology, medicine, and even people can be improved these days. Genetic altercations, cars that park themselves, communications just a click away, and many other great things to ease our day to day life. But is there anything more we can truly improve on? Sure... world peace. Everyone wants that, and thats perfectly fine! But is it probable? No. This goes back to understanding people. Why do you think human history is so violent? Because we are all morally bankrupt to begin with? No, i believe it was because people want to control peoples understanding of one another. And why not? Money, power, prestige, protection, and a lavish existence could have been yours if you were able to control people with pain. That is what happened. Thousands of years of human history of war, violence, conquest, and pure cruelty are more widely known to all humans. Everyone in the western world knows about the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the gorilla warfare in South America, the middle east and the holy wars, and the ethnic cleansing that happened all around the world. This is not mere coincidence. Sure, our democratic system may seem ideal, but in reality democracy was invented for small populations (like ancient Greece) where it could actually be possible to hear everyones voice. But now... it's the lesser of two evils, and either way, it's not up to the people anymore. It's about the political parties and control, which leads back, once again, to pain. All these events helped people to understand one another, to want to avoid such pain again. Will pain ever stop though? No. Development, though we constantly "innovate" and "procreate", does not mean that we can invent flying cars or cures for unknown diseases. No, development is the forward movement of morals, ethics, and understanding. Here's the ever lasting loop. Development=Understanding=Violence=Pain=Development It's inescapable. Human beings may be determined, and strong willed, but they are also easily manipulated with the slightest of words or emotions. Pain can easily manipulate someone (along with love, surprisingly) and this is where understanding takes effect. The person who can use pain to understand someone or a group of people (family issues, blackmail, etc) and can in turn manipulate them. Take the most precious thing to someone, and threaten it's very existence and you create emotional pain. Point a gun at someone and tell them to do something, and they are going to do it because in the end, humans are selfish (as previously stated by others). Obviously, physical injury can force manipulation as well. A long history of pain amongst humans. So there are some things I agree with, but other things that I do not see logically sound. But then again, what is logic? lol {PS... i'm glad this is all in good spirits. Usually people get pissed off when you contradict their beliefs. But i love hearing everyone's opinions, and learning more about what people know and how they approach their thoughts. It's pretty cool.) |
|
| Just a short one this time, don't have much time xD Communication is about experience, by which I mean all the 'sensory input' (sight, feel, smell, hearing and taste) including feelings and your own thoughts on the experience. You can only experience for yourself, and I agree that if you wish to understand someone you have to have the same experience, the closer the better. It is not impossible for humans to invent certain interfaces which will allow us to actually read each others minds and share experiences. Technology like this is being developed today, as are several cures for cancer and AIDS, they just haven't been tested with great succes though. Also, quantum computers, which work by quantum-theory physics which will be many million times faster and more complex than modern computers and bio-robotics, which will fuse mechanical technology with biological complexity, are being researched and built. This is just the start, there's an immense amount of development still possible. (And why doesn't anyone seem to know that flying cars already exist? lol) And yes, people rely on technology, but technology is 'nature' and part of this world nonetheless. Human intelligence and our ability to produce tools is our natural advantage over other species, and there's nothing wrong with using our unique (on this planet) and superior ability for our own good. As on the subject of manipulation, inflicting pain and war, I will once again stress the importance of change and evolution x3 Being able to manipulate means having power. Power is the greatest evil in this world, and exactly for that reason we have formed communities, in which the power of individuals is handed to the state so it will not be abused (in practicallity this still happens all the time unfortunately). Anyways, having power means you can make people do things they wouldn't normally do. By forcing people to do things, you make them behave differently from how they normally would, and thereby changing their chances of survival (could be both increased or decreased). With this you take evolution in your own hands and allow for survival of weak(er) individuals (such as lazy fat people sitting on the couch, who wouldn't survive without the 'power' of the remote and phone, lol) and the killing of strong(er) individuals (such as the people living in africa who work hard, survive long with barely any food and are still left to die). Only the lack of power and ultimate freedom will result in proper evolutionary change and progress. Understanding eachother and understanding life and the universe overall (getting back on the subject here) will lead to freedom and the eradication of power. So improving inter-human communications and improving the way the power of the state is applied will result in a better world eventually, after natural selection has done its work. Seems I got carried away once again, and now I'm late! xD |
| "The view from the bottom of a well may not be much, but you can see the sky and the stars really well. My world is small, but since I'm looking up at space night after night, you could say I'm a frog on a universal scale. When you gaze up at space all alone like that, the back of your mind goes quiet, and you feel as though you've gained an extraordinary amount of wisdom." |
| Well the other name for a plane is a a flying bus or something similar haha. It's human to use our abilities for our own good. Societies are created when people sacrifice a part of their freedom to be able to enjoy the rest of their freedom and have security. The person that rules over the society is obligated to take care of its citizens. It terms of abuse of power, it is because people have ambitions and with that comes corruption and greed. This is the reason people with power abuse it. I don't really have a lot to talk about since I'm going to be repeating myself soon, and Its 1:40am so its a bit hard to think haha. And don't worry Lazhward, I end up being late when I get distracted by philosophical discussions. |
| I know what you mean. I was waiting for an anime to stream all the way while i was typing that previous post and it was loading for almost 40 mins. XD I had to organize my thoughts, and i'm on DSL so meehhhh slow but whatever. But I do understand what your saying. Development for good, and evolution is very important with humans. But I wonder if there could be a such thing as reverse evolution. Is our thoughts, our way of life, a way of reverse evolution? I mean, is complacency the problem? It makes me wonder. Also, since we are talking about pessimism and knowledge, how does it factor in? Is the knowledge that we do know, the truth (however harsh it is) really a truth, or just a fraction of it? To be honest, we as humans only know what was written down, and studied chronologically by other humans. How do we know, in all truth, that that is how it happened? How do we know that those with the power to choose our evolution, didn't alter our perception of the past, and its events? They do have the power to alter and change the documents and truth. It's a question I have asked myself many times, and to be honest, that realization of the unknown really sets me on edge. But I wonder, since I am at a loss for an answer to this, what everyone else thought? |
|
| Hundreds of years ago, before the invention of the internet our brain had the capability of remembering so many things. large numbers, books, poems, weird formulas, etc. But with the invention of the internet the attention span of people, the memory, shortened. Do you see people that can remember 100 phone numbers? No rarely. I think that with the invention of things that make life more convenient. We start to lose some of the abilities that we once had because frankly we don't have to use them anymore. In ancient times farmers could do nothing but farm, but when they found a better way to farm and more convenient way, they had more free time to do other things, like pottery. Everything is so convenient for us now that we have the free time but there isn't a lot you can do, we don't need to do pottery, we don't need to spend hours calculating large numbers. We don't know. Everything that is considered truth in this world is like an opinion that everyone agrees on. Yes perhaps the world really is round, but there are still people that believe it is flat no matter the evidence you present to them. The victor writes history. When you have a war or any conflict, how do you know what happened during the war? You have to look at text books or evidence on the site. But it is the winner that writes what happened. You don't see a in any text book the German version of what happened in WWII. In china, the government hides the truth. you can NEVER find anything in china that makes Mao look bad. There is no such thing as an absolute truth. The human mind changes your events. When something bad happened to you and you look back at it 5 years from now. You start changing what happened. Like when you had an argument with someone and you look back and think, "oh it wasn't that bad, they did have a point here or there, it wasn't really an argument we weren't shouting or anything." the memory of people is so unreliable because we change our memories. What we store in our brain is not a full copy of the event but like a small outline of what happened. When recalling information you have to fill in the blank using you cognitive schema as a guide and its never 100% correct. And as the whole big picture. Unless you have 100 trillion drones that film everything that happens all around the world you can't know the big picture. There is always something happening no matter how small of an event. |
| There's a difference between the existence of thruth, and our ability to know. And you're mainly talking about historical knowledge, scientifical knowledge can be known because one of the main things that makes knowledge scientific is the ability to repeat the experiment/evidence. Scientifical knowledge is not an opinion and not subject to unreliable memory because it can and should be repeated often. This way it'll become intersubjective, the more people see it the higher the chance it's true, same goes with history. And I don't think humans (at least not all humans) have lost their ability to memorize or something like that. We don't have to do it anymore so we don't, which gives us free time like you said. Without free time we would'nt have been able to increase our knowledge, and exactly this knowledge is the primary ability of mankind, remembering stuff is not as important. The more free time we create, the more time we have for science and arts, and I think art is just as important as science. We both watch anime, so you should be able to see the importance of art as well =P |
| "The view from the bottom of a well may not be much, but you can see the sky and the stars really well. My world is small, but since I'm looking up at space night after night, you could say I'm a frog on a universal scale. When you gaze up at space all alone like that, the back of your mind goes quiet, and you feel as though you've gained an extraordinary amount of wisdom." |
| Truth exists, it is everywhere. Our ability to find objective truth is not always present though. Yes scientific knowledge is objective. But what you get from science experiments are numbers or data or stats. That in itself is objective but once someone looks at the data the information becomes subjective because everyone have different interpretation of the same set of data no matter how similar the interpretations can be. The more people see it the higher the chance it is true, that's like saying if the more people believe something happened then the more likely for it to be true. Though the first instance does have the perception evidence but can that really be reliable? Hence I said we rarely see it. I'm sure there are people that can remember the whole phone book. If we have the ability to find new knowledge and not have to remember that knowledge then whats the point? Yes I do agree that art is just as important as science. Our brain is part analytical and part creative after all. Saying art is not important is like disregarding half of the brain. And you using my love for anime in an argument is rather underhanded of you haha. |
kataranara420 said: But I do understand what your saying. Development for good, and evolution is very important with humans. But I wonder if there could be a such thing as reverse evolution. Is our thoughts, our way of life, a way of reverse evolution? I mean, is complacency the problem? It makes me wonder. Also, since we are talking about pessimism and knowledge, how does it factor in? This might just be my opinion, but I don't feel as if evolution and development is just one linear scale. As in, each of the aspects of our lives has its own scale of evolution. And for some of those scales, when they go up, they cause some of the other scales to go down. It would probably go something like this: We are constantly evolving in the avenues of technology, resources, and so on. However, because we are so invested in continuously evolving those, other avenues (such as self-sustainment [I.E making our own food and the like]) continuously go farther and farther down. The way I see it, an example of a "reverse evolution" so to speak would be us so focused on evolving one specific trait (convenience), that our capabilities in anything else free-falls to nothingness. kataranara420 said: Is the knowledge that we do know, the truth (however harsh it is) really a truth, or just a fraction of it? To be honest, we as humans only know what was written down, and studied chronologically by other humans. How do we know, in all truth, that that is how it happened? How do we know that those with the power to choose our evolution, didn't alter our perception of the past, and its events? They do have the power to alter and change the documents and truth. It's a question I have asked myself many times, and to be honest, that realization of the unknown really sets me on edge. But I wonder, since I am at a loss for an answer to this, what everyone else thought? The funny thing about the truth is that it requires so much effort to completely validate it that it makes the whole truth completely a good chunk of the time. For every story there's not only multiple sides, for multiple witnesses (some of whom might have some emotional bias on the situation or may be under the influence of something that might cause that person to potentially misinterpret the truth) along with any potential factors about the area, the date and so that could have possibly affected the situation, be it minuscule or dramatic. And that's just for small situations like "What did you guys do at the bar last night?". If we were to encompass this on a larger scale (like, say, the truth about the history of the world itself), it would take not only so much information from almost every field imaginable (along with multiple historical details that would have to be accounted for dating from the beginning of time to the present day) that it is basically impossible for any one person (or potentially even a group of people) to put together. In short; the full truth is almost impossible to obtain, due to the fact that validating takes far more effort than it's worth. |
| I understand your point, about evolution and development and I agree on some degree with your idea. As I've stated before I think that reverse evolution is due to development. When we have so many things that can do what we need to do that it makes us lose the ability to do those things because we don't have to do those things anymore. Its like an muscle atrophy when you haven't used your leg muscle in a while because you were in a coma or whatever. Facts are like a collection of opinions in which people agree on. We might all agree that the sky is blue but for someone that is colorblind its another story. Again, as I've stated before we all agree that the earth is round but there are still people out there that believe it to be flat. Why? There is proof that it is round. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) There's even a society just for the idea of the earth being flat. There is no such thing as an absolute truth as I've stated in previous comments. There are relative truths. We all see things differently and subjectively. Even science experiments that contain data points and statistics become subjective as soon as we look at it an interpret them. The only way to find the objective absolute truth is by examining everything that has happened to everything, everyone 24/7. And even then I doubt we would find an objective absolute truth. There is one very important question that I don't think that we've really definitively tackled yet, and that is the question of happiness. What is happiness? How do we attain happiness? How does one distinguish happiness from other positive emotions? |
| No, I do not think knowledge is related to pessimism. It is not how much we know that defines our world outlook, it is our perceptions. Bare with me on this..... Think of the traditional paradigm of psychology concerning a stimulus and a response. If we put our hand on a hot stove, we move it (stimulus is the hand on the hot stove and the response is moving the hand). Now expand that to a more sociological motif. We, as social creatures, are bombarded with sociological stimuli. However, unlike the more primal example of removing our hand from a hot stove, these sociological stimuli are not taken in their true form. What i mean by this is that these stimuli must pass through the filter of our beliefs, cultural standards, etc. Because we are all unique, with distinct perceptions of the our environment and our place within it, we view and respond to these more abstract stimuli, on the basis of our past experiences and how we were taught to respond. Our perceptions distort how we understand the stimuli and thus produce an unique response (well unique within the context of such things as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc). For example, what I view, living in a little red-neck town, as "wealth" would differ greatly to an individual who lived in a large metropolis. Another, more extreme example of this would be trying to explain to someone who is color-blind what "red" is. The main point is that there is a lot of f*cking variables to consider when you start examining more abstract stimuli as happiness, justice, etc. What leads to happiness is the understanding that these "filters" in which we view the world are fundamentally flawed or in a larger sense, are nothing more than illusions. Gaining knowledge/wisdom is the medium in which we gain this understanding. Rather than saying that as we gain knowledge we become pessimistic, I think that as we gain knowledge we become more optimistic; because knowledge allows us to see the falsehoods and inconsistencies in our perceptions. Through the attainment of knowledge, we "broaden our horizons" with different perceptions which challenge our own. Once we accept that our perceptions are nothing more than an illusion or at the very least a distorted view of what really is, we are free from the "hang-ups" and hindrances they cause. AND if they are illusions, we can then change them. They are not fixed facts, they are a mindset that can be changed and we can detach ourselves from them. When we gain the knowledge to understand that our ego dictates our response, we can disregard the ego and begin to see the stimuli for what they are. That provides me a shit load of comfort. If I'm unhappy, I can change it. If I despair, I can change to feel hope. Instead of lamenting what I have lost, I can rejoice in what I have been given. Instead of regret and what could of been, I can decide, right now, to change. I am not predestined to be a certain way, because the self and the way I view the world is only as rigid as I decide it to be. Knowledge and learning provides that resource. Our ignorance and rigidity makes us pessimistic, our ability to adapt and "bend" to these trials allows us to survive. |
 |
LincolnsLuck said: No, I do not think knowledge is related to pessimism. It is not how much we know that defines our world outlook, it is our perceptions. Bare with me on this..... Think of the traditional paradigm of psychology concerning a stimulus and a response. If we put our hand on a hot stove, we move it (stimulus is the hand on the hot stove and the response is moving the hand). Now expand that to a more sociological motif. We, as social creatures, are bombarded with sociological stimuli. However, unlike the more primal example of removing our hand from a hot stove, these sociological stimuli are not taken in their true form. What i mean by this is that these stimuli must pass through the filter of our beliefs, cultural standards, etc. Because we are all unique, with distinct perceptions of the our environment and our place within it, we view and respond to these more abstract stimuli, on the basis of our past experiences and how we were taught to respond. Our perceptions distort how we understand the stimuli and thus produce an unique response (well unique within the context of such things as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc). For example, what I view, living in a little red-neck town, as "wealth" would differ greatly to an individual who lived in a large metropolis. Another, more extreme example of this would be trying to explain to someone who is color-blind what "red" is. The main point is that there is a lot of f*cking variables to consider when you start examining more abstract stimuli as happiness, justice, etc. What leads to happiness is the understanding that these "filters" in which we view the world are fundamentally flawed or in a larger sense, are nothing more than illusions. Gaining knowledge/wisdom is the medium in which we gain this understanding. Rather than saying that as we gain knowledge we become pessimistic, I think that as we gain knowledge we become more optimistic; because knowledge allows us to see the falsehoods and inconsistencies in our perceptions. Through the attainment of knowledge, we "broaden our horizons" with different perceptions which challenge our own. Once we accept that our perceptions are nothing more than an illusion or at the very least a distorted view of what really is, we are free from the "hang-ups" and hindrances they cause. AND if they are illusions, we can then change them. They are not fixed facts, they are a mindset that can be changed and we can detach ourselves from them. When we gain the knowledge to understand that our ego dictates our response, we can disregard the ego and begin to see the stimuli for what they are. That provides me a shit load of comfort. If I'm unhappy, I can change it. If I despair, I can change to feel hope. Instead of lamenting what I have lost, I can rejoice in what I have been given. Instead of regret and what could of been, I can decide, right now, to change. I am not predestined to be a certain way, because the self and the way I view the world is only as rigid as I decide it to be. Knowledge and learning provides that resource. Our ignorance and rigidity makes us pessimistic, our ability to adapt and "bend" to these trials allows us to survive. But what if those same filters are what gives you happiness and hope for humanity? I think knowledge is fundamentally nihilistic. The truth hurts in more ways than one. The reality is that there is no such thing as morality or an objective meaning in life. Those things don't exist. They're just mental constructs either conditioned or hardwired in the reptilian part of your brain. But people cling to these things. People cling to their filters of reality. If you prove to someone that once their dead, they're consciousness is most likely lost forever, you give them an alarming sense of dread for their fate. But that's just the knowledge we have about our anatomies and our brains. Our brain cells break down and people are 'lost' forever. Knowledge, scientific knowledge, is leads to extreme pessimism in this case. I don't necessarily agree with OP here. Just presenting some points. |
More topics from this board
» Philosophical Quote Debate #2: Max StirnerGonzyChan - Dec 15, 2013 |
1 |
by Neostorm-X
»»
Jun 27, 2022 11:01 AM |
|
Sticky: » New Member Introduction Thread ( 1 2 )Lithic - Jan 26, 2014 |
70 |
by morimemen
»»
Jun 27, 2020 5:30 PM |
|
» Club Relations ( 1 2 )Danish - Apr 12, 2009 |
69 |
by missbellerophon
»»
Aug 2, 2016 3:02 PM |
|
» THE COVER PHOTOPsychoX - May 3, 2016 |
0 |
by PsychoX
»»
May 3, 2016 4:34 AM |
|
» To the Bookshelf: Post Your Latest TextsPleiadesRising - Sep 25, 2012 |
10 |
by removed-user
»»
Jul 6, 2015 4:16 PM |