Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5748
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
I like the book. I agree with Wilson about a lot of things, but that doesn't really make for enjoyable reading. I did find many parts of the book to be redundant. In good philosophical arguments, I think it is often useful to summarize what has been allegedly proven or argued so far. However, I felt in this book Wilson would repeat the same points without really referencing them as a summary.
What do you think?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14942
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
However, I disagree strongly with his romantic notion that humans will not fully explore biotechnology as a conscious choice so as to retain our "messiness" - or as EOW puts it, "our gift".
He is surely dreaming (and seemingly hoping). Each technological advancement potentially confers advantages. I am yet to see such broad eschewing of potential advantages in humanity, or in any other animals.
Many people are uncomfortable with the rate of technological change but Moore's Law rolls on. New generations naturally generate new ideas and they would seem unlikely to all embrace the "existential conservatism" that EOW proposes. If there is a threshold, barrier or record to be broken, rest assured, someone will try to surpass or transcend it.
Personally, I think that to be wedded to our messiness and internal contradictions is a luxury of a person living in comfortable circumstances. As populations increase and resources wind down, life will become less comfortable. There may come a time when there will be a significant advantage for those who are more synthetically based through reduced capacity for pain and suffering.
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
I agree with this criticism. Stephen Hawking says that editing the DNA will be irresistible.Greta wrote:However, I disagree strongly with his romantic notion that humans will not fully explore biotechnology as a conscious choice so as to retain our "messiness" - or as EOW puts it, "our gift".
He is surely dreaming (and seemingly hoping). Each technological advancement potentially confers advantages. I am yet to see such broad eschewing of potential advantages in humanity, or in any other animals.
Many people are uncomfortable with the rate of technological change but Moore's Law rolls on. New generations naturally generate new ideas and they would seem unlikely to all embrace the "existential conservatism" that EOW proposes. If there is a threshold, barrier or record to be broken, rest assured, someone will try to surpass or transcend it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14942
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
It's already well under way. Only last night I saw how the tardigrade's ability to repair DNA broken down by radiation is being explored so future space travellers will be less vulnerable.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:I agree with this criticism. Stephen Hawking says that editing the DNA will be irresistible.
Changing ourselves will be necessary to help secure our future. The Earth periodically undergoes tempestuous periods that wipe out all dominant organisms - it could be meteors, volcanoes or climate change, and in a billion years the Earth will be completely uninhabitable anyway. If the human race (not to mention other organisms) are to have any hope of survival they must move to another planet or moon. Without genetic or synthetic alterations, we won't be able to do this.
One small thing that irritated me in the book was EO Wilson bitchily referring to one of the most important evolutionary biologists in history, Richard Dawkins, as a "journalist". It was a deliberate and calculated put-down based on their longstanding disagreements about group selection vs kin selection. I largely agree with EO on that issue but such lapses in objectivity reduce trust and credibility.
Otherwise, I have otherwise enjoyed and appreciate the recommendation.
- Parametheus
- Posts: 111
- Joined: April 5th, 2014, 4:15 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
- Lagayscienza
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
- Location: Antipodes
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
I was particularly interested in the appendix in which he discusses a recent mathematical analysis of the theory of inclusive fitness which in his words "attempts to find a universal design principle for evolution that applies at the level of the individual". This recent mathematical analysis shows that it fails to do so. I wonder what Richard Dawkins (who Wilson in the present book refers to as a "science journalist" - not a scientist, mind) will have to say about this. When E.O. Wilson argued for group selection in The Social Conquest of Earth (as he does in the present book) Dawkins went ballistic in his review of it in Prospect magazine telling readers to toss the book away forcefully. Surely this mathematical analysis is a blow for Dawkins who freely admits that he's no mathematician. Although I admire Dawkins' work I think has become a bit dogmatic in his later years and needs to be more open to the possibility of selection at the group level which now seems plausible and has increasingly widespread support.
I highly recommend The Meaning of Human Existence.
-- March 16th, 2015, 2:03 pm --
Yes, I found his idea that "humans will not fully explore biotechnology as a conscious choice so as to retain our "messiness"" a bit fanciful.Greta wrote:Around 2/3s of the way through so I can't rate it yet.
However, I disagree strongly with his romantic notion that humans will not fully explore biotechnology as a conscious choice so as to retain our "messiness" - or as EOW puts it, "our gift".
He is surely dreaming (and seemingly hoping). Each technological advancement potentially confers advantages. I am yet to see such broad eschewing of potential advantages in humanity, or in any other animals.
Many people are uncomfortable with the rate of technological change but Moore's Law rolls on. New generations naturally generate new ideas and they would seem unlikely to all embrace the "existential conservatism" that EOW proposes. If there is a threshold, barrier or record to be broken, rest assured, someone will try to surpass or transcend it.
Personally, I think that to be wedded to our messiness and internal contradictions is a luxury of a person living in comfortable circumstances. As populations increase and resources wind down, life will become less comfortable. There may come a time when there will be a significant advantage for those who are more synthetically based through reduced capacity for pain and suffering.
I think that if we survive it is almost inevitable that at some stage we will install our brain in, and even upload our minds to, machines that are physically much more robust and which don't need the very specific environment currently found on earth to function and flourish. We could achieve and discover and experience so much more if we were not so earthbound and still retain our "humanity" as we do so. I find the idea very exciting. A sort of immortality for atheists.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
Supposing that this will happen. We can't be certain that it won't. But would this actually be a good thing or is it merely spreading our own toxins within our immediate vicinity and by that I mean our quadrant of the galaxy. It's not just new technologies which are indispensable for such a dispensation of ourselves to whatever degree but much more so and with much more difficulty the creation of a new mind, a metanoia (however enclosed) which makes the journey going forward as constructive as we idealistically imagine it to be.Lagayscienza wrote: I think that if we survive it is almost inevitable that at some stage we will install our brain in, and even upload our minds to, machines that are physically much more robust and which don't need the very specific environment currently found on earth to function and flourish. We could achieve and discover and experience so much more if we were not so earthbound and still retain our "humanity" as we do so. I find the idea very exciting. A sort of immortality for atheists.
More likely it's to be a continuation of the human as we know him now hitching a ride by whatever means futuristic technologies will allow...as any successful virus would.
...But think of all the followed
upon creation of the Master Man,
no tragedy before or after
only a farce that long began.
- Lagayscienza
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
- Location: Antipodes
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
Indeed, some say that it's inevitable. It's certainly possible in principle and some argue that, given enough time, anything that can happen will happen. (Deutsch) If that is true then we will eventually become immortal if we wish to be. However, I suppose there is always the possibility that we will met up with an even more advanced species who will want to destroy us. But if there really is a necessary connection between the development of scientific knowledge and moral progress (Pinker, Shermer) then we can expect the science/moral connection to be seen in other advanced species. Thus, we may not have too much to worry about in that respect. And, anyway, the universe is a big place and there's probably room for us all.Jklint wrote:Supposing that this will happen. We can't be certain that it won't.
Well,I suppose that will depend upon whether, as mentioned above, our moral progress keeps pace with our scientific and technological progress. I agree with Pinker and Shermer that there has been moral progress and that that progress has been a corollary of the Enlightenment and the burgeoning scientific understanding that has taken place over the last few centuries. I don't see why that moral progress should not continue. So if we do expand out into the galaxy I expect (or at least hope) we'll take care not to hurt others the way we did when we expanded out of Africa, then out of Asia and Europe to other continents.Jklint wrote:But would this actually be a good thing or is it merely spreading our own toxins within our immediate vicinity and by that I mean our quadrant of the galaxy.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
The "meaning of human existence", as written by humans according to their individual perspectives, defaults to nothing more than interpretation since any such overt meaning never existed in the first place though some are more insightful than others. I found E.O. Wilson's arguments somewhat trite and repetitive with a thoroughly un-Nietzschean title to the book . There didn't seem to be much new here and appears more like a short story for a lot of money.
Any statements made for the "Meaning of human existence" are best made indirectly and it's in that sense that I much prefer the essays of Lewis Thomas and definitely Nietzsche.
- Lagayscienza
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
- Location: Antipodes
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
BTW, Neitzsche is an old favorite of mine, too. I'll have to have a look at Lewis Thomas. From what you say he sounds like a writer I should get to know.
Cheers
- Alan Jones
- Posts: 72
- Joined: May 7th, 2013, 2:33 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: J. Dewey W.T. Rockwell
- Location: Emyn Mar, the Otter Lake Moraine, Michigan
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
Wilson argues persuasively that the engine of evolution is the dynamic-tension between individual survival, and group survival. (Tyrants who traffic in religious legitimacy, in fact are exploiting our genetically-derived propensities for group identity). Wilson has helped to reveal the theoretical inadequacies of so-called inclusive fitness. This laid the groundwork for what he calls a paradigm shift in Evolutionary Theory. In lieu of Biologist Richard Dawkins' selfish gene, we see that group fitness can profit at the expense of individual fitness. (Note: as the dynamic-tension between the group and the individual, the survival of both depend on a complex, kaleidoscopic interplay of their opposing agendas). This improvement in evolution's explanatory powers is, to me the true greatness of the book.
-- September 15th, 2015, 6:20 pm --
I wish to retract my opinion.
-- September 16th, 2015, 7:30 pm --
Please delete this post.
- Ireeesh
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 27th, 2015, 1:16 pm
Re: Overall Rating of "The Meaning of Human Existence"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023