Reply
Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:37 am
My depiction of your 21st Century Scientific Philosophers (I am thinking here of Daniel Dennett, B. F. Skinner, and others of this ilk) is that they are Men In White Coats. They are like clinical specialists who patiently view us spiritual philosophers as harmless eccentrics, hopelessly muddled by quaint notions from New Age bookstores and various illicit experiences. They are well read, well educated, observant, logical, and often annoyingly correct in matters of detail.
Also - they have no soul.
(Of course, they DO have soul. Everybody has soul. But they would never entertain the idea that they do. 'Soul' is one of the quaint anachronisms that they now think they have sighted on their ECG or EEG or whatever it is. 'There it is', they say, with clinical detachment. 'That array of dots that looks like a storm on the radar - that's your soul, right there'.
Therefore I say - they have no soul.)
For us (counter-culturals), the reason we don't like the Men in White Coats (although Patricia Churchland, a Woman, is an honorary member) is because we think their whole aim is to reduce the human experience to the behaviour of a manageable species. It is said that pornography treats women like sexual objects. Well scientific philosophers treat humans as objects also, not really for purposes of sexual exploitation, but in the sense that we are treated like any another species to be managed. After all, one of their axioms is that we are 'just another animal'. (Go ahead! Ask them!) The Subject can only by understood as an Object. So nothing which you can really feel, really matters. Dots on the screen, right? And so us spiritual philosophers have the lurking suspicion that, perhaps even uknowingly, these Men in White Coats are actually the minions of the technocracy, whose job it is to assimilate souls into some kind of scientifically manageable super-structure which can be run and planned by your technocrats and bureaucrats and bankers and the other super-bosses of the scientific-political-economic establishment - without all of the unpredictable outbreaks of creativity and individualism and many of the other unforeseen and unintended consequences of our (apparently accidental) intelligence.
Anyway, that is how I feel. I am not being completely serious about it, although I sometimes feel that there is actually a potential for real seriousness here. Nevertheless I have confidence that overall, the spontaneous nature of humanity will continue to effloresce in ways that even the most expert of Men in White Coats will not be able to plan or manage it. To the Men in White Coats, I only say that there are many genuine and pressing problems which really do need your attention and, in which endeavours, I will wholeheartedly support you.
But who I am, and Nature of my Soul, is not among them!
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94375 wrote:
For us (counter-culturals), the reason we don't like the Men in White Coats (although Patricia Churchland, a Woman, is an honorary member) is because we think their whole aim is to reduce the human experience to the behaviour of a manageable species.
Hi,
My concern is less of their beliefs (we all have them), but that thereligious-like fervor of their beliefs ends up encroaching on my own personal physical freedom and well-being.
Scientists, who lack the necessary caution about their own beliefs, continue to act in ways that may have indeterminate long term consequences on me and my children (e.g. technology trash, invasive medical treatments, chemical waster, biological warfare weapons, nuclear waste, etc.). It is different from religion on how they may go about practicing their fervor (using legal means as opposed to religious means), but the fervor is similar and the ultimate results unknown.
Rich
@jeeprs,
well, speaking as someone soon to be (inshallah) endowed with bionic eyes, they do have their uses.
sometimes i think not only are we different from animals, but they are better than us.
was there ever an evil animal? was there ever an animal that got a whole crowd of its fellow animals to follow it and kill off other animals of the same species?
@salima,
salima;94388 wrote:was there ever an animal that got a whole crowd of its fellow animals to follow it and kill off other animals of the same species?
Groups of chimpanzees have been known to do exactly this...
@jeeprs,
The period from, say, 1800 to 1960 was notable for the production by great philosophers who were grounded and raised in a humanistic and classical tradition, now less in fashion. There are several additional causes of philosophy being taken over by philosophical workers. One also sees this change echoed in what has happened to classical music, which also reached some sort of zenith during the same period.
First, the sheer greatness of the period's philosophers almost necessitates a subsequent rumination about their insights and a working out--- and through--- their visions by applying them to contemporary problems and issues.
This meditative mood has been coupled with a tremendous explosion of knowledge about the world through science and technology that takes time to grasp in a unified view that could produce a major philosophy. We are in the position, then, of the Scholastics who spent several centuries resolving classical with Christian philosophy in a doomed synthesis.
Second, the triumph of a relativist and democratic perspective beginning with the First World War, and the repudiation of the idea of an intellectual aristocracy as the most appropriate guide for society and education, has dampened the desire and ability to achieve a major philosophy.
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;94390 wrote:Groups of chimpanzees have been known to do exactly this...
and they look so innocuous! maybe it is all jane goodall's fault....well, i guess they are no better than us after all.
@salima,
salima;94388 wrote:well, speaking as someone soon to be (inshallah) endowed with bionic eyes, they do have their uses.
sometimes i think not only are we different from animals, but they are better than us.
was there ever an evil animal? was there ever an animal that got a whole crowd of its fellow animals to follow it and kill off other animals of the same species?
Comparing humans to a species which has no sense of morality and an intelligence and semantic capacity far less developed, and then making a moral judgement on said comparison, isn't logical. We're definitely not making an apple to apples comparison here; many things we do other animals simply cannot even comprehend.
As a less extreme example (but following your path), do we compare lions to ladybugs, with the criticism that male lions kill other male lion's cubs if they take over their territory, and ladybugs don't exude any kind of aggressiveness like this? Are ladybugs "better" than lions?
@jeeprs,
ok, time to call the semantics police i guess. i should have said 'i prefer animals to people sometimes', but i will have to revise my opinion and exclude chimpanzees...
i was being a bit less than serious since this is the lounge, actually...
@jeeprs,
Haha, sorry, I don't even realize what subforum I'm in sometimes. Please don't interpret what I said as an attack against you! Be well.
@jeeprs,
Humans ARE objects. So let the experts in analyzing objects do their object analysis.
And insofar as humans are different than other objects, i.e. we think of ourselves as unique among creatures, let that be the food for other people's thought.
Clinicians deal with all of the above, because we have humans, with their fears and passions and complexities in front of us, irrespective of what's happening to their body.
And if someone like Rich feels that science somehow encroaches on his beliefs, or that his beliefs are vulnerable for lack of validation within science, then the problem lies with the strength of his beliefs and not with science. I for one am perfectly comfortable reading the story of Genesis from the Torah in temple yet studying evolution. That's what security in my beliefs and practices allows.
@Aedes,
Aedes;94414 wrote: And if someone like Rich feels that science somehow encroaches on his beliefs, or that his beliefs are vulnerable for lack of validation within science, then the problem lies with the strength of his beliefs and not with science
As I said, it has nothing to do with my beliefs. My concern is with scientists and similar type professions (finance comes to mind) that move ahead and do things without any caution or long-term observations, only to injure (perhaps massively so) the health of human and terrestrial flora.
Practically nothing in science or finance does has been studied for long-term effects and unintended consequences are precisely that. So, how do we figure out how much long term damage is being done as we speak? Is everything positive that is happening due to science and all the major problems that are propping up due to nature? Has not the experimentation in finance taught us about runaway ideas that are not properly examined and implemented in a step-by-step fashion.
Maybe, some people are in too much of a hurry precisely because they believe that they have to accomplish everything in this life.
I personally prefer more cautious, step-by-step approaches.
Rich
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;94375 wrote:My depiction of your 21st Century Scientific Philosophers (I am thinking here of Daniel Dennett, B. F. Skinner, and others of this ilk) is that they are Men In White Coats. They are like clinical specialists who patiently view us spiritual philosophers as harmless eccentrics, hopelessly muddled by quaint notions from New Age bookstores and various illicit experiences. They are well read, well educated, observant, logical, and often annoyingly correct in matters of detail.
Also - they have no soul.
Would the fact (if it is one) that they "have no soul" mean that they are wrong, and that you are right?
@richrf,
richrf;94421 wrote:My concern is with scientists and similar type professions (finance comes to mind) that move ahead and do things without any caution or long-term observations, only to injure (perhaps massively so) the health of human and terrestrial flora.
You're right, let's just be paralyzed and never do anything while we're waiting for the 1000 year outcome measure.
richrf;94421 wrote:Practically nothing in science or finance does has been studied for long-term effects and unintended consequences are precisely that.
That's about the strongest argument one can make for continuing to do science -- so that we eventually find out. Who'd have known when Rachel Carson wrote
Silent Spring that her nonscientific exhortations about the dangers of DDT would lead directly to the death of millions of children every year and the annihilation of African socioeconomic development. But we know better now.
richrf;94421 wrote:Is everything positive that is happening due to science and all the major problems that are propping up due to nature?
It's due to humanity. We can be smart or we can be dumb. If we disavow human knowledge, its acquisition, and its application, we're dumb.
richrf;94421 wrote:Maybe, some people are in too much of a hurry precisely because they believe that they have to accomplish everything in this life.
And maybe some people are in too little of a hurry because they're indifferent about the lives of others.
---------- Post added 09-30-2009 at 02:30 PM ----------
By the way, I've always thought that the Dalai Lama's statements about science to be the most productive, most validating merge of eastern philosophy with scientific thought.
Our Faith in Science
Dalai Lama Gives Talk On Science
The Dalai Lama wrote:If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
@Aedes,
Aedes;94445 wrote:You're right, let's just be paralyzed and never do anything while we're waiting for the 1000 year outcome measure.
Caution is what is required. What we currently have a state of wild abandonment, where things are done on a grand scale without any concern for long term impact.
Aedes;94445 wrote:But we know better now.
Nothing of the sort. We know practically nothing about anything that we are doing. We do know that the water we are drinking, the food that we are eating, the air that we are breathing, the drugs that we are consuming, are substantially different than anything that we have consumed in the millions of years that represent our evolution.
The effects of these ingredients into our lives are not known at all at this time. However, we are observing lots of new strange stuff happening all around us, from climate change, to resistant viruses, to compromised human immune system diseases of all kinds. I don't think it is a good idea to poison the earth and human flora.
Aedes;94445 wrote: It's due to humanity. We can be smart or we can be dumb. If we disavow human knowledge, its acquisition, and its application, we're dumb.
Yes, there is all kinds of knowledge. Some can lead to very grave results. That is why it is best to experiment on a small scale and not to be in too much of a hurry to solve all problems in one lifetime. The problems could get much worse.
Aedes;94445 wrote: And maybe some people are in too little of a hurry because they're indifferent about the lives of others.
The assumption is that there is only one possible approach. There are many. It is just some aren't as exciting or as rapid. But the end result may be much more stable, long-lasting, and healthier.
Rich
@jeeprs,
From what I've seen, railing against science is quite en vogue. Thus, it'd be counter-cultural to take it in stride, putting it in context only where appropriate.
@Khethil,
Khethil;94452 wrote:From what I've seen, railing against science is quite en vogue. Thus, it'd be counter-cultural to take it in stride, putting it in context only where appropriate.
I hope that people are becoming more cognizant of both sides of the coin. One can get easily memorized by quick feel good solutions (e.g. the stock market euphoria) while being blind to the potential downside of throwing caution aside and ignoring the massive problems that may be being created.
A wild swing to the upside is inevitably followed by an equally strong counter movement. The effects of all the poisons that we have thrown into our external and internal environment have yet to be understood, though people are beginning to be acknowledge that there seems to be enormous problems.
Rich
@Khethil,
Khethil;94452 wrote:From what I've seen, railing against science is quite en vogue. Thus, it'd be counter-cultural to take it in stride, putting it in context only where appropriate.
I vote for being counter-cultural.
@richrf,
richrf;94451 wrote:The assumption is that there is only one possible approach.
You may make that assumption, but if you think that science is just one all encompassing point of view then you're wrong. I agree that caution should be used -- but the amount of caution is case-by-case. For my AIDS patients who have run out of medications because of resistance, I'll get unapproved drugs for them by special permission through the IRB and the pharmaceutical company, because it's truly life or death. But I'm not going to that length when the stakes are lower, when we have more luxury of time to determine both safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. This should be true for anything else. Recapitalizing / bailing out banks and AIG and Fanny/Freddy was a big gamble that was only justified because of the emergent nature of the crisis, but long term policy changes need to be less desperate and more thoroughly considered, and interim evaluations need to be codified.
@jeeprs,
I'm pretty well at one with the Dalai Lama's view on science also. I most enjoyed his
Universe in a Single Atom and consult it frequently.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace