There are no significant facts about human beings

pinno

Q: How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fish.

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

What has saddened and disturbed me for many years is that few are even prepared to consider the big questions of life and so never reach the point of an opinion or a decision...

But isn't that the problem with British Society? We (not me) don't like Savants, we like tittle tattle and "more tea vicar"... "Oh the weather is quite nice for the time of year", "If i'd have known you were coming, I would have baked a cake " bollox.

"A working class hero is something to be - they hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool".

Mikey23

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there... So would you regard yourself as a working class hero then? And a part time materialistic Buddhist? Quite an impressive cv

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there... So would you regard yourself as a working class hero then? And a part time materialistic Buddhist? Quite an impressive cv

No, no. Is Leicester loosing?

I am not trying to be a working class hero. You said that few are prepared to ask the big questions. I was trying to underline succinctly the lack of this sort of philosophical debate. I am not a Buddhist, however, I do respect their philosophy on life and I find all religions bar Buddhism (if you can call it a religion) an anathema but the masses need religion. Moral fabric has deteriorated bereft of the virtues/fear of a god.
Back to the OP: We fail to embrace life and talk about the meaning of our existence because the majority are obsessed with other things. It is only when people are faced with their own mortality that any semblance of philosophy comes into daily conversation.
Here's a test for you Crikey - stand waiting for a bus and try your luck with the first person to turn up and strike up a conversation about John Betjeman.

crumbschief

pinarello001 wrote:

Why do we as humans construct questions that we cannot answer?

Why does our lives have to actually mean something? Is that not an extension of egotism? Surely, when we get to the 'end' and reflect, we should be contemplating whether or not we lead an existence based on our impact. Our positive influence on others perhaps or what one has achieved.

End? haha,i'm afraid all of the above is to do with ego,it's common though alot think that way.

meursault

pinarello001 wrote:

Q: How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fish.

I think the joke here is, how many surrealists, but it's a good one anyway.

meursault

pinarello001 wrote:

Back to the OP: We fail to embrace life and talk about the meaning of our existence because the majority are obsessed with other things. It is only when people are faced with their own mortality that any semblance of philosophy comes into daily conversation.
Here's a test for you Crikey - stand waiting for a bus and try your luck with the first person to turn up and strike up a conversation about John Betjeman.

I would struggle in a conversation about Betjeman. I hear what you are saying though, and I find that in workplace discussions and the like, most people are interested in philosophy, it's just that they don't see the point. They don't feel empowered, or a real part of democracy to make any changes even if they could think of interesting or alternative ideas about society or philosophy.

Under this mode production, it's the natural order of things, thinking and asking questions is not to be encouraged, hence the shallowness you pointed out. It's difficult to swim against the stream, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

meursault

Mikey23 wrote:

The salvation of man is through love and in love (wiki quote) .. Yes, that would be my position. The fact that his belief system enabled him to survive the holocaust is interesting. He doesn't explicitly attribute this to spirituality although I suspect that is what happened. I tend to disagree with his rather black and white view of good and evil.. This doesn't sit with my faith position or personal experience

What has saddened and disturbed me for many years is that few are even prepared to consider the big questions of life and so never reach the point of an opinion or a decision...

I don't think evil exists, it's a way of absconding responsibilty. The solutions to all the bad things are well within our capabilities.

I am also saddened and baffled why so few people are interested.

Mikey23

@p.. Isn't the concept of having had an impact, a positive influence on others, achievement essentially egotistical?If life is random and meaningless then surely none of that matters a jot?

Mikey23

@m.. If there is good, then I would argue that there is not good, ie bad, ie evil or call it what you will. Is one not a consequence of the other? And how would you define good? Are there degrees of good ie very good and less good? Is good an abstract concept or can good have a bad or evil consequence?

Sorry if that sounds a little convoluted, I was kind of brain strorming..

Mikey23

@p ... Unfortunately tigers got stuffed

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

@p.. Isn't the concept of having had an impact, a positive influence on others, achievement essentially egotistical?If life is random and meaningless then surely none of that matters a jot?

Only if that impact is to boost one's self esteem/status. (I am not and have not referred to myself in terms of impact/achievement in this dialogue BTW Mikey).
Life is random but it's meaning is peculiar to the individual.
That moves the whole debate to Ulterior motive...

Mikey23

I was speaking in abstracts too.. And not quite ready to move on to ulterior motive ;-)

So would you go as far as to agree with the author that you are 'an actor on the stage that you have erected'?

Mikey23

And is life truly random or do we tend to mould it in our own image ie what work to do, where to live, children, hobbies and interests?

Mikey23

But perhaps that's the ulterior motive?

meursault

Mikey23 wrote:

@m.. If there is good, then I would argue that there is not good, ie bad, ie evil or call it what you will. Is one not a consequence of the other? And how would you define good? Are there degrees of good ie very good and less good? Is good an abstract concept or can good have a bad or evil consequence?

Sorry if that sounds a little convoluted, I was kind of brain strorming..

I agree, not good exists and a spectrum of good/not good. My interpretation of evil is different. It's a label to pin the bad things on, as if we cannot do anything about such bad.

"Those terrorists are evil..." No, they are the product of our time and society, and can be rectified if we really want to. The reason I think the concept of evil is relatively popular, is because it becomes not our responsibilty.

The definition of good is a minefield, way beyond my limited thinking, but it would broadly be something like generally beneficial. I understand this isn't really an answer to your question. I will go away and contemplate it though.

Mikey23

Nope... Wasn't expecting a glib answer, just throwing stuff out there...
I agree that we label in a very black and white way as in 'this terrorist is evil' but where do you take the grievance back to. Ie this poor chap had his country colonised, exploited etc 200 years ago and was that beneficial to people in this country and less beneficial to the indigenous people and can we do anything about that and is it necessary to blow up people in the name of your religion in order to get your point across...

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

I was speaking in abstracts too.. And not quite ready to move on to ulterior motive ;-)

So would you go as far as to agree with the author that you are 'an actor on the stage that you have erected'?

Mikey is triple posting because Leicester lost but he can be philosophical because even though they lost, they got a bonus qualification point.

Back to the plot...
'an actor on the stage that you have erected' - aren't we all. The stage is a construct of our own egocentricity. Its size is also a self perceived construct.

meursault

Mikey23 wrote:

Nope... Wasn't expecting a glib answer, just throwing stuff out there...
I agree that we label in a very black and white way as in 'this terrorist is evil' but where do you take the grievance back to. Ie this poor chap had his country colonised, exploited etc 200 years ago and was that beneficial to people in this country and less beneficial to the indigenous people and can we do anything about that and is it necessary to blow up people in the name of your religion in order to get your point across...

Thnking about it so far, I break it down like this

1. Look at humans as organisms. The priorities are to survive and breed.
2. Look at human history. Humans have always lived in societies. May be linked to the success of 1.
3. Consciousness. What is it? Why is it? Why/How did it evolve and why is it beneficial to 1. and 2?
4.Morality. Who decides it?
5. Can't think of any others atm

I would think logically, that goodness plays it's part in the above concepts.

Mikey23

Should be calming down now and taking late night meds...
I think you are just taking big words out of the dictionary at random now :-)

So you are tending to agree with the author that there are no significant facts about human beings.. So a nihilistic Buddhist with materialistic tendencies then...

Mikey23

I'm off to bed now .. Thanks for the conversation guys... Much food for thought

team47b

Albert Camus, Absurdism, the humanly impossible, The Stranger, meursault, got it now, bit slow there.

Don't loose your head

pinno

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Nope...your point across...

Thnking about it so far, I break it down like this

1. Look at humans as organisms. The priorities are to survive and breed.
2. Look at human history. Humans have always lived in societies. May be linked to the success of 1.
3. Consciousness. What is it? Why is it? Why/How did it evolve and why is it beneficial to 1. and 2?
4.Morality. Who decides it?
5. Can't think of any others atm

I would think logically, that goodness plays it's part in the above concepts.

'Goodness' or altruism, benefits the pack. It's in my interest to keep you alive because we need to forage as a group. Individually, few of us are capable of surviving on our own.

Are we putting too much emphasis on this thing called consciousness ? Through evolution we became intelligent to the point that we have more free time. If we had not, we would be spending time just searching for food and staying safe.
More free time to think and pontificate, to embark on a process of reasoning. Because we have the free time to reason, it doesn't mean that the reasoning in itself has any real meaning.
Despite Plato, Socrates, Chomski, Camus, Nietzsche, Kant etc etc, we still have war, greed, exploitation and famine.

I think as a race, we became too clever for our own good.

Deconstructionism. My preferred stance. Strip it down to its nuts and bolts and see things for what they really are.
Surely consciousness is mutually conducive to survival but it is constrained by our physical limitations and our unique knowledge that life is finite?

Mikey23

More free time to think and pontificate? Isn't that what humans do? Therefore no progress, no science, no art, no music, no anything really

Yes we still have war, greed, exploitation and famine but that, as you would say, is another story, and for the moment outside the scope of the thread.

And deconstructionism I'm afraid I don't buy for a minute. Just another postmodernist philosophical fad in my opinion

Mikey23

And I've adopted Leinster now btw cos it sounds quite a lot like Leicester ...

Mikey23

@m.. Humans as organisms who have historically lived in societies that have conscience and morality and as p says, goodness and altruism benefit that society. I agree with what you are saying but can see an obvious flaw when applying a spectrum of goodness in evolutionary terms

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

More free time to think and pontificate? Isn't that what humans do? Therefore no progress, no science, no art, no music, no anything really.

So we have 'progressed' since Plato's Republic. Really ? We have not progressed morally. The philosophical arguments regarding morality have been in existence for over 3000 years. Perhaps longer - Lao Tsu; Tao Buddhism.

The scope and spectrum of evolution is from art to the atomic bomb. Art is subjective, the atomic bomb is destructive. Neither can be classed as 'higher thinking' or anything to do with civil and moral evolution.
To say we have the cure for Small Pox, for example is a litmus test of evolution, is flawed. The scientific and medicinal world has gained benefit from the accumulation of knowledge and research. But morality and its intrinsic assumed link to civilisation has not evolved. Then one can assume that Art is definately not a yardstick of behavioural evolution, nor is the atomic bomb an example of moral evolution.

There is nothing new under the sun (Aristotle 322BC, no less. Ha ha)

We have to seperate moral evolution from scientific discovery if we are to clarify 'progess' and ascertain what state civilisation is in. In this global world, we are collectively on self-destruct and that means that we humans as a race are devolving.

Mikey23

@p.. good post argued with passion. Much of which i find myself agreeing with although im still having difficulty working out your belief system! get another pint in ...

meagain

I think that the title of the referenced article is a bit of an academic come-on - "there are no significant facts about individual human beings that can emerge in biographies" would better reflect the content. That argument is more about historical schools (of analysis) than philosophy IMO.

As with most philosophy, long winded way of saying no man is an island - it is the ways and means by which that island is affected that is (sic) subject to study and interpretation.

pinno

meagain wrote:

I think that the title of the referenced article is a bit of an academic come-on - "there are no significant facts about individual human beings that can emerge in biographies" would better reflect the content. That argument is more about historical schools (of analysis) than philosophy IMO.

As with most philosophy, long winded way of saying no man is an island - it is the ways and means by which that island is affected that is (sic) subject to study and interpretation.

Some sense, I hear meagain (eat your heart out Yoda, I can talk funny too). Yes, it's provocative nature was academic That's good, because it lead to a debate.

@Crikey... I do not have a 'belief system'. I am still forming an idea of existence. I have a feeling it will be a lifelong journey.
I admire those who commit fully to Buddhism. Religion is for the masses but it is an anathema to the people living outside of the pit whose shadows are on the walls of those within the pit. Religion often puts man above his environment. Creationalism (a la Latter Day Saints etc) is as destructive a religion as fundamentalist Islam....(another argument, the Old World vs The New World: Two men think they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong. MK)

I would like to think that as a collective, given the accumulation of moral philosophy from Tao to Kant's Categorical imperative, we could form an ethic based on humanity and nature. Our materialistic and often pontificated existence, has seperated us from the fact that we are an animal species.
But we are far away from that collective ethos and I doubt the majority have the sentient capacity to form one.