Reply
Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:15 pm
Philosophy- the great persuit of truth. The process of critical thought. The collective metaphysical, intellectual and social learnings of a growing species.
Humanity- the ever illogical, emotionally driven creature who is constantly searching but rarely finds what they are looking for. A collection of memory associations driving a primal desire for growth.
Humanity founded philosophy. Philosophy searches for humanity... but where do these two meet.
In my recent adventures, I have discovered a base truth about humanity which I had never wanted to accept before. We do not truly care about furthering ourselves as a species. We only desire personal growth. While some may argue that I am wrong, I will submit evidence to my argument.
$4.9 billion dollars was handed over to cancer research in 2009 by the united states government. Globally, cancer was a $17 billion industry. And yet, we still have no cure. We can map the human genome. We can splice a goat and a spider together for better silk, but we can't cure cancer. On the same note, AIDS research pulls in billions of dollars a year for the purpose of finding a cure and yet, we have only treatments.
We spend $28,000,000.00 to create a pen that writes in zero G. $500,000,000.00 on movie. $32,000,000.00 for a sports player to keep playing for 5 years. $2,000,000,000.00 for a theme park to be stood up.
$956,203,500,000.00 on killing civilian gorillas in a country we have no claim too. And what have we gained?
As a species, how have we become stronger for this? How have we pushed ourselves to enlightenment or truth?
Philosophy is good for many things. Most noteably, it is good for bringing together common ideas and practices and finding ways to communicate with each other despite our various differences. Philosophy can teach us about perspectives, ideology, religion, ethics, morals, differences and commonalities. My question is not about intent, however. My question is about applicability.
Where do Humanity and Philosophy meet? These amazing ideas, thought experiments and practices have gotten us where?
What separates mankind from animals is our advanced minds and yet, we are still territorial, violent, emotional, hormone driven reproduction machines. In the end, all of our experiences, gadgets, creations, are nothing more than a waste of resources and some thing more to fight over. At what point do we, as a species, begin to deploy our own ideas? When do we outgrow our petty differences and work as a whole? When and where does Philosophy and Humanity meet?
@Icon,
Perhaps some thought should be given to the possibility that the "humanity" in your examples are living their own choosen philosophy?
Has it not been proven that change comes from working on what each of us personally hope to change? That asking others to change without also pointing out to them the personal readily achievable rewards is act of futility.
Lost1
@Lost1 phil,
I've been watching the Charlie Rose show nightly. Two nights ago, he spoke to two senators (one democratic, one republican) and one business man. The topic was the Obama's recent budget proposal.
A theme that appeared was this: circumstances are moving toward a global run on dollar. The senators accept a projected time-frame of about 5 years. They also suspect that only an "exogenous" force could allow Congress to take the steps necessary to shore up the dollar. In other words: Congress won't act until the crisis happens... not because they don't care, but because they can't.
I've observed this to be an aspect of humanity. On the one hand it makes us look impotent, but on the other... there may be some accidental wisdom in it. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't actually know what will happen five years from now. The conventional wisdom is that the way to avoid a run on the dollar is to raise taxes in America. Raising taxes at this point would work against our tentative recovery.
So often in life, we're called upon to act without any way to know for sure what the best path is. I think this is one of the reasons intellectuals don't usually govern. The archtypical intellectual can't act without confidence founded on logic. A nonintellectual can.
An old philosophical notion is: work with nature, not against it. This saying suggests folly in trying to imprint a hypothetical world of imagination on the realm of actuality.
As the youngster comes into the adult world, the greeting is: "Welcome to the real world."
@Arjuna,
Icon wrote:Where do Humanity and Philosophy meet? These amazing ideas, thought experiments and practices have gotten us where?
What separates mankind from animals is our advanced minds and yet, we are still territorial, violent, emotional, hormone driven reproduction machines. In the end, all of our experiences, gadgets, creations, are nothing more than a waste of resources and some thing more to fight over. At what point do we, as a species, begin to deploy our own ideas? When do we outgrow our petty differences and work as a whole? When and where does Philosophy and Humanity meet?
Most western societies are founded on the philosophical ideas of equality and liberty. In many ways history is the story of philosophy gradually providing a workable framework for our animalistic needs.
So I think the question is, "When do we outgrow our petty differences completely"?
I would say: in direct proportion to how much luxury and time we can spare. Ideas can help, but they are slow to spread.
@Lost1 phil,
Lost1;124617 wrote:Perhaps some thought should be given to the possibility that the "humanity" in your examples are living their own choosen philosophy?
Has it not been proven that change comes from working on what each of us personally hope to change? That asking others to change without also pointing out to them the personal readily achievable rewards is act of futility.
Lost1
I am not particularly asking anyone to change. I am fully aware that change is not possible on a large scale without a large event to force it.
I am not stating that change needs to occur. I am asking why we choose to think one thing and act, or more appropriately react, upon a completely unrelated series of ideas.
An example.
From an ethical and logical stand point, I know that revenge is a waste of time and energy in our current society. This does not prevent me from taking revenge in some small way against my aggressors.
@Icon,
Icon;124636 wrote:I am not particularly asking anyone to change. I am fully aware that change is not possible on a large scale without a large event to force it.
I am not stating that change needs to occur. I am asking why we choose to think one thing and act, or more appropriately react, upon a completely unrelated series of ideas.
An example.
From an ethical and logical stand point, I know that revenge is a waste of time and energy in our current society. This does not prevent me from taking revenge in some small way against my aggressors.
Well, isn't "some small way" the key here? We've largely moved beyond revenge killings, duels, and even fistfights to a certain extent.
The basic urge won't go away, but philosophy effects our laws, our cultural ideas, and our personal ideas, all of which have a huge impact on how we act.
@Icon,
If someone kills your dog. Would you retaliate? If not then why?
@Icon,
Icon - you ask how can we think one way and act in another. That likely depends on which options we choose to be guided by, our power of reasoning and conclusion based on our choose of ethics, or ours emotional responses. Humans can't actually act in the moment when they believe something is wrong, we first have to justify our actions/make it right in our minds before we can act.
Check out your own conclusion to your example -- you will first have to justify your retaliation, correct?
Lost1
@Lost1 phil,
Lost1;124861 wrote:Icon - you ask how can we think one way and act in another. That likely depends on which options we choose to be guided by, our power of reasoning and conclusion based on our choose of ethics, or ours emotional responses. Humans can't actually act in the moment when they believe something is wrong, we first have to justify our actions/make it right in our minds before we can act.
Check out your own conclusion to your example -- you will first have to justify your retaliation, correct?
Lost1
Yea.. and part of choosing an action is looking at the personal costs. Once you step into the web of doing harm, you're stuck. From then on, that's part of who you are, and that's your affect on your world. Abuse breeds abuse.
The villian made you into a villian... the truth is the villian never had that power over you. You were always free.
@Icon,
Mankind is, but is not entirely, a part of nature. While many human attributes can be seen in a rudimentary and imperfect state in select species (monkeys use tools, whales can communicate, the busy beaver can build dams
etc.,
etc.), none can compare with the uniqueness that sums up humanity.
Not only is the human being aware of his own eventual death, but his ability to transmit information to distant future generations to build an increasing stock of knowledge, and to understand of his place in nature also allows him to manipulate it in significant ways (for better or worse).
The arts, science, and particularly philosophy belong to the non-natural part of man, and the more they are cultivated the less "natural" is human life; but in the same way that these endeavors separate man from nature, they also bring him back to a vital understanding of himself and his position within it. But the more we deny our uniqueness and these endeavors, the more we become a beast in the field, happily chewing its cud.
@jgweed,
jgweed;124951 wrote:Mankind is, but is not entirely, a part of nature. While many human attributes can be seen in a rudimentary and imperfect state in select species (monkeys use tools, whales can communicate, the busy beaver can build dams etc.,etc.), none can compare with the uniqueness that sums up humanity.
Not only is the human being aware of his own eventual death, but his ability to transmit information to distant future generations to build an increasing stock of knowledge, and to understand of his place in nature also allows him to manipulate it in significant ways (for better or worse).
The arts, science, and particularly philosophy belong to the non-natural part of man, and the more they are cultivated the less "natural" is human life; but in the same way that these endeavors separate man from nature, they also bring him back to a vital understanding of himself and his position within it. But the more we deny our uniqueness and these endeavors, the more we become a beast in the field, happily chewing its cud.
It does not follow from the fact that people are very different from animals that people are not entirely a part of nature, does it? But maybe I don't know what you mean by "being a part of nature".
@Icon,
Icon;124397 wrote:At what point do we, as a species, begin to deploy our own ideas? When do we outgrow our petty differences and work as a whole? When and where does Philosophy and Humanity meet?
Our ideas; expressions of our inner thoughts, only get deployed here and there, without constancy or any unified direction. That's part and parcel to our separated and often disparate motives (which are more often than not, simply temporary self-served goals).
We won't outgrow our petty differences and work as a whole. We're divided now more than ever; alone, now more than ever. And again, towards what good direction might we move, if everyone's only looking at their own immediate concerns? It's almost a race lost before its begun.
Philosophy is but
an expression of a part of our humanity; that part which
wants to understand, know and think. Unfortunately, this too is deluded by the extent to which varied philosophical lines of thought clash and fragment. As we know all too well, 'philosophy' is often hegemenously understood to be "rant" - definitely contrary to any
coming together.
There is no coming together en-masse; nor will there be. It's simply not in our nature. Further, the forces of divisiveness (race, religion, politics, economics, etc.) pit us; one against the other. For as long as these peck at our rowers, our boat won't ever move in any one direction.
Thanks
@jgweed,
jgweed;124951 wrote:Mankind is, but is not entirely, a part of nature. While many human attributes can be seen in a rudimentary and imperfect state in select species (monkeys use tools, whales can communicate, the busy beaver can build dams etc.,etc.), none can compare with the uniqueness that sums up humanity.
Not only is the human being aware of his own eventual death, but his ability to transmit information to distant future generations to build an increasing stock of knowledge, and to understand of his place in nature also allows him to manipulate it in significant ways (for better or worse).
The arts, science, and particularly philosophy belong to the non-natural part of man, and the more they are cultivated the less "natural" is human life; but in the same way that these endeavors separate man from nature, they also bring him back to a vital understanding of himself and his position within it. But the more we deny our uniqueness and these endeavors, the more we become a beast in the field, happily chewing its cud.
That which you discribe as non-natural is what makes us human -- it is in fact a very natural part of being human, so I not understanding your second paragraph contradicting you first.
Lost1
@Icon,
I did not mean to confuse. I was using "natural" in the traditional philosophic sense in which nature is "applied to the content, structure, and development of the spatio-temporal world as it is in itself." (Flew) In this sense, it is somewhat akin to a strictly "scientific" description of the physical world. One might further clarify its contents by imagining the natural world as one without any human influence (as if humans did not exist, and then putting them back into it as dumb animals).
@jgweed,
jgweed;125077 wrote:I did not mean to confuse. I was using "natural" in the traditional philosophic sense in which nature is "applied to the content, structure, and development of the spatio-temporal world as it is in itself." (Flew) In this sense, it is somewhat akin to a strictly "scientific" description of the physical world. One might further clarify its contents by imagining the natural world as one without any human influence (as if humans did not exist, and then putting them back into it as dumb animals).
So, why are people (partly) not-natural? Which part of people cannot be scientifically described?
@jgweed,
jgweed;124951 wrote: But the more we deny our uniqueness and these endeavors, the more we become a beast in the field, happily chewing its cud.
I agree. I distrust regressive nostalgia. Forward march!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace