Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Could We Live Up To Our Expectations?

Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there's one thing that's interesting about the ancient religions, which were most often polytheistic, it's that their gods were so imperfect. Moreover, they were distinguished by markedly human standards, with such descriptions as "beautiful" and "wise;" and, they had personas, which often conveyed irresponsible or immature emotions like envy or obstinance. In effect, they were a collection of us, or perhaps, a representative of our government, providing us the same haphazard and unreliable leadership that we give each other, quite neatly rationalizing the waxing and waning of life.

Eventually, as we began adopting more despotic governments (an arrangement we never entirely got away from, as every government at least has a system whereby their entirety is still represented by a single person politically), so did our religions, and our interaction with them. However, now we needed to rationalize God's authority with more than just "he's stronger and wiser." Because, we keep impressing ourselves. We're so strong, and so wise, that we're beginning to figure everything out, with enough destructive force to undo all of God's proposed creations.

So, now, he must be wisest, or strongest, or even perfect in order to have any credibility whatsoever.

Then, we go on forever and ever arguing this wisdom, strength, or perfection -- it's viability, truth, meaning, etc...

But, we can't find anything about it or that communicates to us directly from it that we haven't created ourselves, so we're left with a logical contradiction, and anger at the possibility that it's just us.

Now, bear with me, because this is just something that crossed my mind, and don't reflect my core beliefs necessarily -- but I will admit that it's in constant flux. That said...

SO, the point is that we, humanity, are truly the most intelligent, conscious, complex, aware, sentient beings we've ever encountered. Perhaps, even, alone. In what we know is a perceptively infinite Universe (although, there is evidence of a margin -- so, in what is the Universe?). So, we hold dominion over everything we find, essentially. Imagine that.

We have the capacity to create almost everything we see.

Figure that.

In essence, if we leave out all of the mystical properties of what is proposed as a god, then all we have is ourselves. All we can prove that really governs us, and holds dominion over everything on earth is us.

Now. Here is the question.

All of these criticisms we render to God, and for atheists especially, toward every god -- do you think we could live up to the expectations we'd have for the same beings we grant the same responsibility as God? (Write our laws, judge us, control our lives, render punishment, watch over us, control our money, take tithes, instruct us on morality, teach us, lead us, represent us, destroy us...)

Just think...

How are we to animals?

Some of you even consider acts like testing on animals acceptable... but, have you ever considered what we would expect of an actual godlike figure, such as perhaps, an alien life form with infinitely more knowledge then us, swooping down out of nowhere, kidnapping us, performing horrible tests on us that traumatize us for the rest of our lives, then depositing us back in our bedrooms? Something against which we can't defend ourselves? How would we talk about such an alien life form?

We would curse them, and spite them, and hate them -- and, we would feel completely righteous in doing so. If we discovered this were actually true, most of humanity, I'm sure, would be outraged. But, let's be honest. The only things we know for certain do such horrific and monstrous things is... us.

So, as heirs to this Earth, as the beings chosen by whatever -- religion, science, fate, magic, aliens, whatever -- to develop the capacities we currently hold, what are we like? Have we improved the planet that we've been given? Are we just and benevolent to the beings here below us? If animals could talk, do you think they'd ask the same questions? Such as -- "If humans were so intelligent and had so much control, why is there world hunger? Why is there pain? Why do we suffer?"

Because, think about it. It has been proven that there is enough food for the whole world.

Could we live up to our expectations of what heirs of this Earth should be like?

Or, are we instead, every monster we've ever contrived? The Devil, Aliens, and all the demonic entities depicted in stories and movies, many of which are more direct reflections of ourselves.

What would Jesus do... place in a new frame of light...

This is way too long, and no one will probably read this, but it's something that occurred to me, and I guess I had a lot to say about it. Probably should have just made a word file... >.> :P
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:06:03 PM, Ren wrote:
Or, are we instead, every monster we've ever contrived? The Devil, Aliens, and all the demonic entities depicted in stories and movies, many of which are more direct reflections of ourselves.

if you're a psychopath.. yeah.

What would Jesus do... place in a new frame of light...

I don't care what jesus would do.. I care what I would do.

Similarly... I would oppose evil, super-intelligent, aliens who care to torture me and other people.. and might curse and hat them.. But..
I wouldn't do so "Righteously" as you suggested "we" would.

Righteousness is for those who care what Jesus would do.. Righteousness is either a God of itself.. or clings to a god for it's existence.

Righteousness is silliness.

I care to do what I would do... and if what I would have differs from what those evil aliens would do.. I'll do my best to oppose them.. But only silly people will oppose them "righteously"
This is way too long, and no one will probably read this, but it's something that occurred to me, and I guess I had a lot to say about it. Probably should have just made a word file... >.> :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:27:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:19:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:06:03 PM, Ren wrote:
Or, are we instead, every monster we've ever contrived? The Devil, Aliens, and all the demonic entities depicted in stories and movies, many of which are more direct reflections of ourselves.

if you're a psychopath.. yeah.

My point is that it applies to almost everyone, rather than just psychopaths.

What would Jesus do... place in a new frame of light...

I don't care what jesus would do.. I care what I would do.

That is literally what the post is about.

Similarly... I would oppose evil, super-intelligent, aliens who care to torture me and other people.. and might curse and hat them.. But..
I wouldn't do so "Righteously" as you suggested "we" would.

Righteousness is for those who care what Jesus would do.. Righteousness is either a God of itself.. or clings to a god for it's existence.

Righteousness is silliness.

Uhm... I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying here. I said that we would feel righteous in doing so -- we would feel correct. You clearly feel correct, and similarly, have the very self-righteous attitude about it to which I referred.

I agree that it's silliness, but to the effect that we would be being hypocritical.

I care to do what I would do... and if what I would have differs from what those evil aliens would do.. I'll do my best to oppose them.. But only silly people will oppose them "righteously"

So, it's silly to do so because you think it's right, and instead, to acknowledge it's hypocrisy and engage it anyway?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:29:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:27:50 PM, Ren wrote:
's silly to do so because you think it's right, rather than to acknowledge it's hypocrisy and engage it anyway?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:27:50 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:19:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:06:03 PM, Ren wrote:
Or, are we instead, every monster we've ever contrived? The Devil, Aliens, and all the demonic entities depicted in stories and movies, many of which are more direct reflections of ourselves.

if you're a psychopath.. yeah.

My point is that it applies to almost everyone, rather than just psychopaths.

What would Jesus do... place in a new frame of light...

I don't care what jesus would do.. I care what I would do.

That is literally what the post is about.

Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

Similarly... I would oppose evil, super-intelligent, aliens who care to torture me and other people.. and might curse and hat them.. But..
I wouldn't do so "Righteously" as you suggested "we" would.

Righteousness is for those who care what Jesus would do.. Righteousness is either a God of itself.. or clings to a god for it's existence.

Righteousness is silliness.

Uhm... I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying here. I said that we would feel righteous in doing so -- we would feel correct. You clearly feel correct, and similarly, have the very self-righteous attitude about it to which I referred.

no.. I don't feel any more "correct" than those meanie aliens..

I care to have the world a different way.. and would seek to make it so.

I would not like them.. and oppose them. I wouldn't feel righteous.. As I said.. Righteousness is silliness.

I agree that it's silliness, but to the effect that we would be being hypocritical.

It's in no way hypocritical to care differently from Meanie aliens... and to oppose them based upon what you care about.

I realize meanie aliens might have their own cares... Fine.. Understood.

I understand that they'll seek what they will.. I will seek their undoing b/c it's what I would care to do... how's this at all hypocritical?

I care to do what I would do... and if what I would have differs from what those evil aliens would do.. I'll do my best to oppose them.. But only silly people will oppose them "righteously"

So, it's silly to do so because you think it's right, and instead, to acknowledge it's hypocrisy and engage it anyway?

"right/correct" are words YOU keep using.. Not Me dummy ;)

I keep saying "what I care about" and it's not hypocritical for me to seek what I would care to have done done.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

We don't have dominion over all species, microorganisms like viruses have a dominion of us because the vaccines, preventions, and cures don't compare to the sickness and lives taken by these microorganisms, plus they are better at survival.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 3:55:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:54:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

We don't have dominion over all species, microorganisms like viruses have a dominion of us because the vaccines, preventions, and cures don't compare to the sickness and lives taken by these microorganisms, plus they are better at survival.

You clearly didn't read what I said. And, that is rather fail reasoning....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

Then why are you commenting on it?

Fine, it was rambling and nonsensical. The rest of what you said was irrelevant, because it doesn't approach anything but meaning that you attributed to something that is actually rambling and nonsensical.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Jesus supported the position of putting everything ahead of ourselves, although the Bible does concede that we have dominion over everything.

In any case, that isn't a philosophical vantage; it's a factual one.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

No, it's not.

In any case, many, if not most, can.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:22:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:54:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

We don't have dominion over all species, microorganisms like viruses have a dominion of us because the vaccines, preventions, and cures don't compare to the sickness and lives taken by these microorganisms, plus they are better at survival.

Parasites do not have dominion over anything. Conversely, they are the only organisms who's existence depends on the survivability of its prey. In this way, they are at the bottom of the food chain, not the top.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

By the way, your criticism was made apparent by your complete incomprehension of the post. I don't blame you for not reading a wall of words, but don't pretend to have read it and/or understood it when you clearly did not.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:29:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is going to sound quite cynical and misanthropic, but...

I really don't think we could ever live up to our expectations. Given the assumption we are completely alone, and we govern ourselves, then all of our "ethics" and "morality" and "society," in the grand scheme of things, go out the window. In the scope of the Universe, we are insignificant. On a smaller scale, I'd say that our monsters are closer representations of ourselves than the saints.

However, I do believe though that all that is irrelevant once you get down to our scale. On the scope of humanity, our species is infinitely valuable, and has meaning. In other words, our meaning in the Universe is inconsequential, and, when you get right down to it, like your analysis, the only ones left to judge us and determine our value is us.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:30:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sorry if you feel I haven't appropriately responded to your question. If you want a more direct answer/comment, please tell me.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:19:26 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

Then why are you commenting on it?

I was commenting on parts of it... I thought individual bits of it were worth calling out as silly..

In saying it's rambling and 'as a whole' not coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.. I meant that, contrary to your later assertion, it didn't have a clear central message about which it all contributed.. it was a ramblish post.


Fine, it was rambling and nonsensical.

by saying it wasn't coherent.. I didn't really mean it was non-sensical.. I meant it was disointed and didn't all fit together so easily as to have a clear central theme to be "about"

Though the implicationThe rest of what you said was irrelevant, because it doesn't approach anything but meaning that you attributed to something that is actually rambling and nonsensical.

I didn't respond to your post saying your central point is nonsense.. I said you had no central point after you had claimed that I agreed with your central point...

you did however have several disjointed observations and claims there.. and I disagreed with a couple and made my own which more accurately depict reality.

(like how, despite one assertion in your post, "we" don't feel righteous.. only the silly among us do)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:32:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:29:03 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is going to sound quite cynical and misanthropic, but...

I really don't think we could ever live up to our expectations. Given the assumption we are completely alone, and we govern ourselves, then all of our "ethics" and "morality" and "society," in the grand scheme of things, go out the window. In the scope of the Universe, we are insignificant. On a smaller scale, I'd say that our monsters are closer representations of ourselves than the saints.

However, I do believe though that all that is irrelevant once you get down to our scale. On the scope of humanity, our species is infinitely valuable, and has meaning. In other words, our meaning in the Universe is inconsequential, and, when you get right down to it, like your analysis, the only ones left to judge us and determine our value is us.

I'd say we completely agree.

So, what would it take -- perhaps, a collective movement toward greater maturity tantamount to macrocosmic aging to compliment the microcosmic aging in each individual that causes greater maturity?

And, with this maturity, do you think it's possible to somehow come closer to our expectation of heirs to the degree that we've become?

And, in this regard, what do you think it would require??

Thanks for replying. :)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:23:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

By the way, your criticism was made apparent by your complete incomprehension of the post. I don't blame you for not reading a wall of words, but don't pretend to have read it and/or understood it when you clearly did not.

read the whole thing bub..

Despite it's containing some assertions and despite my being able to get some gist of your meaning.. It was an incoherent ramble.

Since you seem to misunderstood what I meant when I said Incoherent: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:32:22 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 5:29:03 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is going to sound quite cynical and misanthropic, but...

I really don't think we could ever live up to our expectations. Given the assumption we are completely alone, and we govern ourselves, then all of our "ethics" and "morality" and "society," in the grand scheme of things, go out the window. In the scope of the Universe, we are insignificant. On a smaller scale, I'd say that our monsters are closer representations of ourselves than the saints.

However, I do believe though that all that is irrelevant once you get down to our scale. On the scope of humanity, our species is infinitely valuable, and has meaning. In other words, our meaning in the Universe is inconsequential, and, when you get right down to it, like your analysis, the only ones left to judge us and determine our value is us.

I'd say we completely agree.

So, what would it take -- perhaps, a collective movement toward greater maturity tantamount to macrocosmic aging to compliment the microcosmic aging in each individual that causes greater maturity?

And, with this maturity, do you think it's possible to somehow come closer to our expectation of heirs to the degree that we've become?

And, in this regard, what do you think it would require??

Thanks for replying. :)

I think that something along those lines of what you described would be what it takes. The only problem I have with acting under that assumption is that it would be too infeasible.

To have the entire human species move forward toward a better future of maturity would require that the ENTIRE human species would have to be on board. Even a small group of people can gum up the works of damn near anything (al Qaeda comes to mind). So, to get everyone on board, drastic actions would have to b taken--such as killing all dissenters. But then, unless we are acting under utilitarianism, we'd be reneging on our effort to better the species for our heirs.

And then that opens the can of worms of what is the greater good or "maturity" of the species. No--our individualism would get in the way of any kind of collective effort of the sort. In other words, our very nature would not allow us to better our species; we were damned from the start.

However, assuming we could somehow hypothetically get a collective initiative, then yes, I believe we'd be at least a LITTLE closer to fulfilling our expectations.

(PS: I apologize if I'm not exactly eloquent in my writing--I am but 15, and even though I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I love creative writing, I can't seem to make my writing reflect my thoughts very accurately).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 6:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:32:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/10/2012 5:19:26 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

Then why are you commenting on it?

I was commenting on parts of it... I thought individual bits of it were worth calling out as silly..

In saying it's rambling and 'as a whole' not coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.. I meant that, contrary to your later assertion, it didn't have a clear central message about which it all contributed.. it was a ramblish post.


Fine, it was rambling and nonsensical.

by saying it wasn't coherent.. I didn't really mean it was non-sensical.. I meant it was disointed and didn't all fit together so easily as to have a clear central theme to be "about"

You're lying.

I naturally write in an organized fashion, by default. I know this, as a professional. That notwithstanding, your opinion is yours; however, I even presented a thesis statement, albeit late in the piece:

"Now. Here is the question.

All of these criticisms we render to God, and for atheists especially, toward every god -- do you think we could live up to the expectations we'd have for the same beings we grant the same responsibility as God? (Write our laws, judge us, control our lives, render punishment, watch over us, control our money, take tithes, instruct us on morality, teach us, lead us, represent us, destroy us...)"

This is because everything that preceded it was essentially an introduction -- what we can accept God as, if He in fact, didn't exist.

The rest of what you said was irrelevant, because it doesn't approach anything but meaning that you attributed to something that is actually rambling and nonsensical.

I didn't respond to your post saying your central point is nonsense.. I said you had no central point after you had claimed that I agreed with your central point...

non·sense   [non-sens, -suhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
words or language having little or no sense or meaning.

No central point = no sense or meaning.

you did however have several disjointed observations and claims there.. and I disagreed with a couple and made my own which more accurately depict reality.

So, God has nothing to do with man's responsibility to himself? Alright, that's your opinion. However, in the many posts and the numerous moments you've wasted rendering that assertion, you've yet to substantiate it.

A fifteen year old thinker in this thread doesn't seem to be having the same problems, however, so looks like the burden of proof, if you're really on so caught up with establishing this point, is on you.

(like how, despite one assertion in your post, "we" don't feel righteous.. only the silly among us do)

right·eous   [rahy-chuhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2.
morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3.
acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4.
Slang . absolutely genuine or wonderful: some righteous playing by a jazz great.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 6:28:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:45:49 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

I think that something along those lines of what you described would be what it takes. The only problem I have with acting under that assumption is that it would be too infeasible.

I see where you come from with that, but isn't that such a horrifying thought? Sheesh.

To have the entire human species move forward toward a better future of maturity would require that the ENTIRE human species would have to be on board. Even a small group of people can gum up the works of damn near anything (al Qaeda comes to mind). So, to get everyone on board, drastic actions would have to b taken--such as killing all dissenters. But then, unless we are acting under utilitarianism, we'd be reneging on our effort to better the species for our heirs.

And then that opens the can of worms of what is the greater good or "maturity" of the species. No--our individualism would get in the way of any kind of collective effort of the sort. In other words, our very nature would not allow us to better our species; we were damned from the start.

However, assuming we could somehow hypothetically get a collective initiative, then yes, I believe we'd be at least a LITTLE closer to fulfilling our expectations.

(PS: I apologize if I'm not exactly eloquent in my writing--I am but 15, and even though I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I love creative writing, I can't seem to make my writing reflect my thoughts very accurately).

Lol, then I wonder what you meant, because it seemed clear and eloquent enough to me. :P

You're an excellent writer for a -- what, sophomore? So many adults seem outright illiterate. :\

See, it does always seem that way in humanity, everyone thinks it's so important to be dissonant... but, in so many ways, we're so much the same, and from a far enough perspective, we're all the same, really...

And, the direction things are going, for example, the Internet that makes it possible for people like you and I to have this conversation when we otherwise would have never known the other existed -- I believe that it may be possible for us to act much more cohesively, if not more maturely, as well. Economic globalization is another example, as well as the fact that so many cultures have permeated others, to become a distinct and permanent facet. Or, the fact that it usually requires several people from several countries to contrive the things that affect and progress us most. And, with each of these trends, perhaps we are taking steps closer to our positive potential.

Or, perhaps that's just being idealistic. On the other hand, we could just remain dissonant children, meaninglessly attempting to distinguish ourselves while remaining ignorant to general knowledge that could contribute to positive collective thought, through consensus derived from fact. You feel me?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:25:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:21:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Jesus supported the position of putting everything ahead of ourselves, although the Bible does concede that we have dominion over everything.

In any case, that isn't a philosophical vantage; it's a factual one.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

No, it's not.

In any case, many, if not most, can.

The Fool: there is lots of hope. . just not that way. stop calling theologins philosopher. they are phony..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 10:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 6:28:25 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 5:45:49 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

I think that something along those lines of what you described would be what it takes. The only problem I have with acting under that assumption is that it would be too infeasible.

I see where you come from with that, but isn't that such a horrifying thought? Sheesh.

To have the entire human species move forward toward a better future of maturity would require that the ENTIRE human species would have to be on board. Even a small group of people can gum up the works of damn near anything (al Qaeda comes to mind). So, to get everyone on board, drastic actions would have to b taken--such as killing all dissenters. But then, unless we are acting under utilitarianism, we'd be reneging on our effort to better the species for our heirs.

And then that opens the can of worms of what is the greater good or "maturity" of the species. No--our individualism would get in the way of any kind of collective effort of the sort. In other words, our very nature would not allow us to better our species; we were damned from the start.

However, assuming we could somehow hypothetically get a collective initiative, then yes, I believe we'd be at least a LITTLE closer to fulfilling our expectations.

(PS: I apologize if I'm not exactly eloquent in my writing--I am but 15, and even though I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I love creative writing, I can't seem to make my writing reflect my thoughts very accurately).

Lol, then I wonder what you meant, because it seemed clear and eloquent enough to me. :P

You're an excellent writer for a -- what, sophomore? So many adults seem outright illiterate. :\

See, it does always seem that way in humanity, everyone thinks it's so important to be dissonant... but, in so many ways, we're so much the same, and from a far enough perspective, we're all the same, really...

And, the direction things are going, for example, the Internet that makes it possible for people like you and I to have this conversation when we otherwise would have never known the other existed -- I believe that it may be possible for us to act much more cohesively, if not more maturely, as well. Economic globalization is another example, as well as the fact that so many cultures have permeated others, to become a distinct and permanent facet. Or, the fact that it usually requires several people from several countries to contrive the things that affect and progress us most. And, with each of these trends, perhaps we are taking steps closer to our positive potential.

Or, perhaps that's just being idealistic. On the other hand, we could just remain dissonant children, meaninglessly attempting to distinguish ourselves while remaining ignorant to general knowledge that could contribute to positive collective thought, through consensus derived from fact. You feel me?

I feel you.

I see what you mean, about the Internet and other such technologies being able to help bring us all closer as a species and as people. Indeed, it is likely that, for example, you and I would be ignorant of each other's existence if it were not for tech like the Internet. However, it is important to remember that, like all things, these technologies are never inherently good, and never inherently bad for any given purpose. It all depends on the user, and how the user chooses to implement said technology. As an example, we can look at nuclear fission and fusion. With this discovery, we have developed many technologies, but two that might be considered polar opposites (using "common sense" morality) would be nuclear power and nuclear weapons. One, power, has a (relatively) benign purpose: to power our homes cleanly (all disadvantages aside). However, the other, weapons, have a more sinister one: to destroy, and to kill.

This isn't even limited to more serious tech. We can look at things such as entertainment to see how certain fields/technologies can branch off down two different paths. For example: we have the film industry and the graphic novel/comic book industry. Both began in the same way--as cheap entertainment, nearly devoid of dignity or respect. But the difference is in how both fields have panned out since their creation. Film has, arguably, raised itself to a respected art form (looking at general public opinion), or at least a higher form of entertainment, even in the face of less-than-well-received pieces like 2012. Comic books and graphic novels weren't so lucky. THAT field has arguably fallen into low entertainment, and is not respected at all, even with such masterworks as Maus (which won a Pulitzer!)

Anyway the point of that diatribe was to make the point that there really is no definite telling which direction these new, potentially positive technologies will take us: to the mature world Utopia of the future, or to the same situation as now (and possibly even more degraded). As shown in my previous posts, I'd be slightly more inclined to believe the latter, but you never know: we may actually be able to move forward in a good direction. I'm sure we'd all like to think so.

And that's my opinion.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is what I said about your post.

At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

as you can see through my pointing out "as a whole" when I say "coherent" I mean Cohere together well... Solid, tight, togetherness.

I was saying your post was all over the place... and that the ramblings from Greek gods to devils to evil aliens was not all tied together well by making evident some analagous connection to some central idea.

anywho.. you've dropped responding to my actual disagreements with what you said in the first place.. and this conversation you now pursue is, if possible, more ridiculous than your initial post :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:58:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:30:51 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
This is what I said about your post.

At 2/10/2012 3:38:16 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Your post was rambling and, as a whole, wasn't coherent enough to be "about" any particular thing.

as you can see through my pointing out "as a whole" when I say "coherent" I mean Cohere together well... Solid, tight, togetherness.

I was saying your post was all over the place... and that the ramblings from Greek gods to devils to evil aliens was not all tied together well by making evident some analagous connection to some central idea.

anywho.. you've dropped responding to my actual disagreements with what you said in the first place.. and this conversation you now pursue is, if possible, more ridiculous than your initial post :)

Lol, you should brush up on your reading comprehension, Matt.

Then why are you commenting on it?

Fine, it was rambling and nonsensical. The rest of what you said was irrelevant, because it doesn't approach anything but meaning that you attributed to something that is actually rambling and nonsensical.

It's not that I want to discuss something else with you, it's that I consider your input trifling and I've taken to ignoring you.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:37:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:25:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 5:21:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/10/2012 3:25:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Jesus also supported the idea that we were to hold dominion over all animals, and to not place them ahead of us.

Jesus supported the position of putting everything ahead of ourselves, although the Bible does concede that we have dominion over everything.

In any case, that isn't a philosophical vantage; it's a factual one.

Regardless, this is under the assumption that animals could be rationale, think, and reason, ect.

No, it's not.

In any case, many, if not most, can.

The Fool: there is lots of hope. . just not that way. stop calling theologins philosopher. they are phony..

How are theologians distinct from philosophers, in your opinion -- and what gives philosophers greater credibility?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 8:36:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any response to my response Ren? Or have we reached the point to where we'll just end up repeating the same things to each other in agreement?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus