S
SeaMaiden
Ah, then by that definition I am 100% a realist. We are animals, ruled very strongly by hormones and blood chemistry. Incredibly strongly if you examine it closely.
Place for Dummies to Hang
- Thread starter Jbonez
- Start date
My thirst for logic is there as well, tho I have to accept logic for what it is, a malleable deduction based on perception and intuition, which is unique to every human on this earth.
If we all shared an inherent logic apart from selfishness... Where would that leave us... So are we so alike?
Id kill myself before Id be expected to watch others suffer at my selfishness..
T
toughmudderdave
Lord of the Flies
I'm not really a follower of Ayn Rand or the concept of free markets policing themselves. I think that's pushing another Utopian fallacy. I believe greed is a natural human phenomena, I do think it's good though. Her philosophy was based in realism though.
Francis Bacon was a big influence in this obey vs perfect debate.
Francis Bacon was a big influence in this obey vs perfect debate.
Um... I love you.
You couldnt be more spot on with that reference, and as a child I was able to make the distinction.. Troubling movie, tho very real I fear...
Lets see what a plane full of catholic girls would have done lol...
I was watching, I believe it was Sam Harris debating on objective morality..
Holy shit that will make your head spin..
Interesting.
There was another thread here that had a link to all the lectures in Psychology 1504. A class at Harvard.
I got the question from listening to a couple of this guys lectures. Really interesting stuff.
There was another thread here that had a link to all the lectures in Psychology 1504. A class at Harvard.
I got the question from listening to a couple of this guys lectures. Really interesting stuff.
ayn rand was a nazi bitch and david rockerfeller's lover, not sure which one of those two sickens me more.. atlas shrugged and all that bullshit is grade A bankers brainwashing..
there is too much damn nihilism and apathy in this world.. and its getting worse daily..
the masses certainly are.. but they are pond life anyway.. some humans achieve higher levels of existence and awareness.. people dont have to be ruled by the lower senses but they are kept mere animals on purpose in our time..
there is too much damn nihilism and apathy in this world.. and its getting worse daily..
the masses certainly are.. but they are pond life anyway.. some humans achieve higher levels of existence and awareness.. people dont have to be ruled by the lower senses but they are kept mere animals on purpose in our time..
T
toughmudderdave
Indeed it was. As for the Catholic girls, I suspect the end result(s) would not be much different.
S
SeaMaiden
LMAO! Honey, considering what *you* know about Catholic school girls...! Could be worse, eh?
I actually never paid much attention to the philosophers after HS and some college. The only one whose work I still appreciate and feel has something to offer is Joseph Campbell. He happened to be a Catholic! And may have had an affair with John Steinbeck's first wife. He was good friends with Ed Ricketts, who can be considered the father of modern taxonomy.
Jesu Cristo, the useless shit I know.
roman catholicism has done more damage to the human race than anything i cant think of,,apart from maybe the TV.. truly the hierophant is the lord of the flies, spreading misery, ignorance and fear.. burning books and truth seekers for over 2500 years..
it turns natural loving people into self deprecating sado masochistic aliens.. perverted scum of the earth..
it turns natural loving people into self deprecating sado masochistic aliens.. perverted scum of the earth..
More than "the real houswives of atlanta" cuz I was able to talk my wife out of her Catholic ways...
Funny you say that about TV.. The other night my wife and my room mate were watching tv and I asked them if we could just turn it off and smoke and shoot the shit.. If looks could kill..
unspoken
Member
I think it's a combination of both. Like anything else there is a balance to be struck. I wrote a paper based on Francis Bacon about environmental policy including people like William Mulholland and Floyd Dominy, commissioner of the federal Bureau of Reclamation from 1959 to 1969. That guy is a trip. if you are really interested I can recommend a movie called Cadillac Desert. That is man vs. nature in general, but I suppose we are talking about man vs. man's nature, if we can distinguish a difference here.
I think we can push, but not shove. I think at this point just about everything around us is a construct of the manipulation of human nature. Whether that is a good thing or a bad, well, I think it's both. We have been shoved by religion, money, and even our peers. I believe that is the source of a lot of problems in the world today, increase in mental illness, failing physical health, tv addiction, processed foods etc.
On the flip side, where would we be without the manipulation of our nature?
Also, when we are observing people in somalia, etc...Are we truly observing "human nature" or are we observing a response to an environment and calling an uncharacteristic response human nature? Example, say we are observing a fox in nature, it is playful with other foxes, and cautious of us as observers. Although it's protective of its family and food, its not overtly aggressive/nasty. Maybe after time it even accepts us as a part of the environment and allows us close to its kids. Can we approach the same fox that's been caught in a trap and in defense/panic mode and say that is its true nature?
I think even at this level, they still have social pressures exerted on the group, although maybe that is just human nature.
http://youtu.be/7a7IaS3ml4g
I think we can push, but not shove. I think at this point just about everything around us is a construct of the manipulation of human nature. Whether that is a good thing or a bad, well, I think it's both. We have been shoved by religion, money, and even our peers. I believe that is the source of a lot of problems in the world today, increase in mental illness, failing physical health, tv addiction, processed foods etc.
On the flip side, where would we be without the manipulation of our nature?
Also, when we are observing people in somalia, etc...Are we truly observing "human nature" or are we observing a response to an environment and calling an uncharacteristic response human nature? Example, say we are observing a fox in nature, it is playful with other foxes, and cautious of us as observers. Although it's protective of its family and food, its not overtly aggressive/nasty. Maybe after time it even accepts us as a part of the environment and allows us close to its kids. Can we approach the same fox that's been caught in a trap and in defense/panic mode and say that is its true nature?
I think even at this level, they still have social pressures exerted on the group, although maybe that is just human nature.
http://youtu.be/7a7IaS3ml4g
You're observing the closest thing to the human "State of Nature" possible. State of Nature being what Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau discuss. Basically how do people act in a state of anarchy.
Somalia offers a glimpse of it on an individual actor level.
All states naturally exist in the global system in a state of anarchy with each other and the way they act in relation to each other is all the evidence that one needs to prove the "constrained" school of thought IMO.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you can really sit on the fence with this argument.
If you believe a little of both then you are de facto agreeing with the unconstrained view (which given your political persuasion is where I'd expect you to be). This choice is mutually exclusive.
If you believe a little of both then you are de facto agreeing with the unconstrained view (which given your political persuasion is where I'd expect you to be). This choice is mutually exclusive.
unspoken
Member
I just hate that you used the word perfected. So, no I don't think any nature can be perfected, but I do feel like it can be manipulated to better suit us, while acknowledging that there can be unintended consequences, and trying to be mindful of them. You think the state of things in places like somalia is as close to natural humanity as possible; I think that it is the result of years upon years of those people being used and discarded. I think that you are making a rationalization for immoral behavior, not necessarily saying anything about human nature. I would follow more closely the idea that social scientists coined the "frustration-aggression hypothesis," that violence and aggression are reactive. Frustration leads to anger (as do hurt and fear, which are variations of frustration), and anger sometimes leads to violence and immoral behavior.
Right, so you fully subscribe to the unconstrained view.
So maybe not perfected right? But tried to make better. Tweaking, manipulating, working towards some defined sense of better. In other words perfecting something that is imperfect.
Glad you note the unintended consequences of trying to do so. I agree, they are very dangerous which why I not only think it's a bad idea, but a futile endeavor anyway with only negative long term consequences.
What do you think the State of Nature as described by Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau would look like? A stateless, government less, lawless society.
