The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
what a chimera then is man. What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the scum of the earth.
Shakespeare (via Hamlet):
What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?
Do you think Pascal was parodying Shakespeare? Hamlet was having a bit of a downer on humanity because he was depressed because his uncle had killed his dad and copped off with his mum. Perhaps Pascal was depressed too? Perhaps he'd lost a wager or something.
I don't think humankind will need to cooperate. The billionaires and ultra privileged will be fine and will most likely carry on the story as they shed the rest of us like a snake shedding its skin.
The "pleasant land" is gone, alas. The unprecedented climate stability that has allowed humans to prosper is nearing an end. Frankly, I think most of us will snuff it (well, that's a given of course!) but I expect the Earth's human population to be very much less in the next few hundred years. Given that the planet's surface is being bled dry by seven billion people, expert predictions of 11 billion for the turn of the century strike me as mechanistic - assuming that an increasingly dynamic situation will stop being dynamic. My guess is 2 to 4 billion, with plenty living in Russia, Alaska and the Antarctic.
But do not panic! Rest assured, if anyone is going to be okay, it will be Trump and his fossil fuel investor pals. It's not going to be the indigenes of Tuvalu or sub-Saharan refugees. I must be getting dark in my old age. I'm amused that the very people most responsible for climate change problems are the most likely survivors to carry on humanity's banner. It somehow seems to nicely encapsulate the unfair nastiness of nature,
Just as human morality gradually evolved from the spawn of mindlessly brutal microbes and bugs, morality should be able to re-emerge from the spawn of the Trumps, Kochs and Murdochs of this world. Personally, I suspect humans will only become truly moral when they can be fully digitised and thus be able to entertain themselves without cost to each other and other organisms. As long as we retain animal aspects of ourselves, our instincts will thwart us in our attempts to be more ethical. The lessons of Golding's Lord of the Flies remain as relevant as ever.
It is not the humanity of fossil fuel companies that drives them to behave as they do but their inability to restrain their base animal drives for power and status. It's not so much that humans are scum so much as all life is scum! Being the Earth's most powerful and eloquent representatives of life, we naturally bring life's scumminess into sharp relief :)
Don't be fooled by that "living in harmony with nature" or "they only take what they need" guff about other animals. It's romanticism akin to that of the "noble savage" myth. If other species could achieve humanlike dominance, they surely would.
I like your entertaining brand of cheerful pessimism/optimism about the human race - retaining the ability to be amused at the whole human tragedy (which, after all, is comedy minus time). I think you're probably largely right, but I am interested in this part:
Personally, I suspect humans will only become truly moral when they can be fully digitised and thus be able to entertain themselves without cost to each other and other organisms. As long as we retain animal aspects of ourselves, our instincts will thwart us in our attempts to be more ethical. The lessons of Golding's Lord of the Flies remain as relevant as ever.
I guess we're already partly digitised in the sense that some of us, at least, indulge our destructive impulses in the virtual worlds of video games. But I wonder how far we will take this in the future? If we take it to the extreme we get to the situation that some people (like Elon Musk) think we're already in. In that case, maybe it already doesn't matter. Perhaps the mystery of what happens when we die will be solved with a huge "Game Over" sign.
Or perhaps it does matter because if the digital duck looks like a duck... I still feel bad about eating it with some plum sauce and a nice Chianti.
The line in 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - " Nothing really matters - at all" sort of sums it up. We are naturally concerned and vitally involved in life and particularly the new generations coming along, but the time span of individual life is so fleeting, that it may be sensible to focus on pleasasure and fulfilment and to hell with the consequences!
I can't get away from a strong belief that life is a mere illusion.
Fairwinds wrote:Blaine Pascal is quoted as saying " what a chimera then is man. What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the scum of the earth. "
This strong statement sums it all up for me, particularly the indictment at the end, and the evidence is all around. Will it ever change?
It can be very easy to just see the bad, and on our own, yes, I believe we are pretty awful. With God, though, and as a former atheist I know the cringing some of you must be doing, we have the potential to be so much more. That's where we must turn our hope.
Fairwinds wrote:Blaine Pascal is quoted as saying " what a chimera then is man. What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the scum of the earth. "
This strong statement sums it all up for me, particularly the indictment at the end, and the evidence is all around. Will it ever change?
It can be very easy to just see the bad, and on our own, yes, I believe we are pretty awful. With God, though, and as a former atheist I know the cringing some of you must be doing, we have the potential to be so much more. That's where we must turn our hope.
Ah, the good versus the bad! What a fascinating debate, but surely the terms good and bad are very subjective and depend on where you are coming from. As a previous post pointed out, as humans we are all the same material at least, but we may, and we do,view things differently.
My own view, simplistic as it may be, is that man is inherently savage, with a thin veneer of civility. Very thin. We all like to think we are different, but is it true??
Personally, I suspect humans will only become truly moral when they can be fully digitised and thus be able to entertain themselves without cost to each other and other organisms. As long as we retain animal aspects of ourselves, our instincts will thwart us in our attempts to be more ethical. The lessons of Golding's Lord of the Flies remain as relevant as ever.
I guess we're already partly digitised in the sense that some of us, at least, indulge our destructive impulses in the virtual worlds of video games. But I wonder how far we will take this in the future? If we take it to the extreme we get to the situation that some people (like Elon Musk) think we're already in. In that case, maybe it already doesn't matter. Perhaps the mystery of what happens when we die will be solved with a huge "Game Over" sign.
Or perhaps it does matter because if the digital duck looks like a duck... I still feel bad about eating it with some plum sauce and a nice Chianti.
Steve - amused at the irony behind the tragedy of life, certainly the tragedy of the commons and the people most responsible will most benefit.
Of course at present you will feel guilty about consuming the liver of H̶a̶n̶n̶i̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶L̶e̶c̶t̶e̶r̶'̶s̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶s̶u̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶l̶e̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ a duck with a nice Chianti. You are conditioned to your eating being a reality rather than abstracted. What about after a year of digital dining? You'd think that conditioning would be pretty fast if it accords the morality of doing no harm. You would have a pang at first, a sense of "̶O̶h̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶G̶o̶d̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶i̶b̶a̶l̶!̶"̶ conscience, but that would soon be replaced by the pleasure of knowing you are being highly ethical! (Then again, would that give you pleasure as a digital person, given that normally such a situation would trigger a dopamine response?).
Researchers are a long way from that, though. This is not just mapping a person's brain in atomic detail, and not even just the brain's dynamics, but predicting the brain's future dynamics. A a static, no-learning, non-growing existence would not be much fun, so learning and growth in one's own particular way must be part of it.
It can be very easy to just see the bad, and on our own, yes, I believe we are pretty awful. With God, though, and as a former atheist I know the cringing some of you must be doing, we have the potential to be so much more. That's where we must turn our hope.
Awful compared to whom?
Compared to an infinitely holy and righteous God. Regarding what Fairwinds has to say, I think you are right, but my question to you is, where, especially in a Darwinian evolutionary model, does the civility you mentioned come from? Not what purpose does it serve, where does it come from?
Compared to an infinitely holy and righteous God. Regarding what Fairwinds has to say, I think you are right, but my question to you is, where, especially in a Darwinian evolutionary model, does the civility you mentioned come from? Not what purpose does it serve, where does it come from?
I note by your question and use of the archaic term "Darwinian evolutionary theory" that you have not read any serious material about evolution. Why not? Do you not find nature to be fascinating? Do you speak about Newtonian physics as though it's a complete package, or do you also take relativity and quantum mechanics into consideration?
Civility comes simply from being social animals. You will find civility in all social animal groups. Even ants mostly cooperate peacefully so it's hardly a stretch that intelligent, aware animals like humans would devise much more sophisticated systems of cooperation. Any groups that lack internal cooperation tends not to successfully compete against more cooperative groups. So internally cooperatve groups tend to proliferate more than competitive ones. This goes beyond Darwin to EO Wilson and group selection.
Regarding the quality and value of humans, if you fall and break a leg in a remote area, there is a very good chance that the best thing that could happen to you is for another human to find you. You would be very unlucky to have "scum" find you. More likely the person would be like most people we all know - reasonably pleasant and mostly just hoping to have a nice life. Or would you prefer to be found by wolves, bears, coyotes, snakes, fire ants or giant centipedes?
The issue is not human quality, but human numbers and their means of gaining energy.
Greta you do bring up a good point about civility being found in a number of forms of life (though let's be real, civility only goes so far in every social group, especially with humans). However, just because it is good practice and makes sense to us from where we are, that doesn't answer the question of where it comes from - how did, in a Darwinian Evolutionary Model (which we can shorten to "DEM" from now on) does it make best sense to be as MORALLY social as we are? For instance, why the rules against certain things you would be more likely to see (not necessarily inevitably) in animal social groups - i.e. cannibalism, abandonment of one's young (even though it would make more sense for an animal to raise the offspring and keep it safe that way), or mate because they will literally EAT THE YOUNG (male raccoons do this from what I'm told, and there's a fascinating story behind how i know this)?
My point, in short, is that there are things like that that animals do that we don't and find "reprehensible" or "disgusting" - why? Yes, some people do things like that, but it's easily the exception, not the rule, and what I was getting at is that the DEM doesn't give a direct answer beyond "being social animals" as to why we would not do these things. Sure, it's obviously beneficial for survival as a larger group, but we have species that practice these things and still get along relatively fine (the raccoon population in my area, for instance, is relatively stable). The evolution model's explanations for stuff like this is sparse - I'm glad you gave me an answer, but it's an incomplete answer, and while I admit that being satisfying shouldn't be the crux of what makes sense for us and/or inform our beliefs, the DEM answers for the origin of quite a bit (life, language, and to a degree, civility) is that they all come from nothing. Which is interesting because we have a Newtonian law that says something can't come from nothing. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Speedy, speaking as an animal with numerous "moral reflexes" inherited both genetically and memetically, I think that when living in a non-dire social situation it is easier to be moral than otherwise, certainly simpler. It is the line of least resistance.
As I noted earlier, old models like Darwin's and Newton's are substantially true, but required tweaking for detail. Enter Lorentz, John Maynard Smith and EO Wilson and group selection became an adjunct, rather than a replacement for, natural selection. By the same token, Einstein updated, but did not substantially contradict, Newton's laws. Group selection will tend to answer your above questions but it won't give you the answer you want.
Compared to an infinitely holy and righteous God. Regarding what Fairwinds has to say, I think you are right, but my question to you is, where, especially in a Darwinian evolutionary model, does the civility you mentioned come from? Not what purpose does it serve, where does it come from?
Well, it is true that no real person can successfully compete with a myth and come out ahead. Especially since myths (existing as they do within the minds of their inventors) face simplistic problems with simplistic solutions.
Civility is a fascinating subject. It can be argued that civility is a luxury in a ' comfortable' set of surroundings as in the western world. Under stress or in desperate circumstances, it disappears. Having said that, I agree with a previous comment that being found injured by a human and in a remote area, there is a good chance of being treated well. Not always though. History is littered with accounts of appalling treatment of shipwreck survivors.
To answer 'Speedy' - I don't know where civility comes from. Is it inherent in some individuals, whatever the circumstances? I believe this is so, but it is a strand in our make up which is not common.
...You are conditioned to your eating being a reality rather than abstracted. What about after a year of digital dining? You'd think that conditioning would be pretty fast if it accords the morality of doing no harm. You would have a pang at first, a sense of "̶O̶h̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶G̶o̶d̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶i̶b̶a̶l̶!̶"̶ conscience, but that would soon be replaced by the pleasure of knowing you are being highly ethical! (Then again, would that give you pleasure as a digital person, given that normally such a situation would trigger a dopamine response?).
I think you're right and that it's probably quite easy to become conditioned as to what is right and wrong. An obvious example of this (which I think you've brought up before and we've discussed) is our general attitude towards other animals. The vast majority of us have absolutely no problem with the way livestock animals are treated but are shocked if we see a pet dog being mistreated. We're very, very good at compartmentalizing our morality, even if it leads to things that seem blatantly self-contradictory. I don't see that as a judgement on humanity. It's the way we are, and it's possible to see how it's an attitude which evolved for good reasons.
-- Updated Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:42 am to add the following --
(This doesn't mean I have a fatalistic view of our treatment of other animals. It just means that I think we have to be clear-eyed in looking at ourselves.)