There are no significant facts about human beings

Mikey23

but then it wouldnt have raised the comment it did, which is surely the point...

im not sure that philosophy is my favourite subject unless im bored and x factor is on. been reading up on reductionism as @p brought it up but gave up and am not much the wiser

Mikey23

so perhaps a solution would be either to buy a belief system off the shelf (as i did) or to construct one from various bits and pieces in a kind of pick and mix style. the problem with the latter is that the bits one choices often make no sense when put together and dont work very well

the other prob i can see is that your lifetime journey might end more prematurely than you think in which case you might miss out on the point of it all

Mikey23

and for what its worth i entirely share your view of creationism. still not overwhelmed with macro evolution, but have seen plenty of evidence of micro. the earth is NOT 6000 years old...

Mikey23

x factor finished now... byee

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

so perhaps a solution would be either to buy a belief system off the shelf (as i did) or to construct one from various bits and pieces in a kind of pick and mix style. the problem with the latter is that the bits one choices often make no sense when put together and dont work very well

the other prob i can see is that your lifetime journey might end more prematurely than you think in which case you might miss out on the point of it all

Having faced my own mortality as a young man, I do not feel that I need a belief system. Unless you think I do. I was not supposed to live. Then I was told I would never have children. I lived and my some miracle (good medicine, good diet, cycling) I conceived. The reason I like a nuts and bolts perspective (deconstructionalism not reductionism), is that I like having my feet firmly on the ground because I know how fragile life can be and I value living and my gorgeous girls. Love a lot, trust a few and paddle you own canoe. What other things that concern me fits into 2 categories: Stuff I can do something about and stuff I can't. I will do what I can and the rest I have to leave.

freddiegrubb

I'd like to join in this debate but too many big words, that's all I can say on the subject.

team47b

freddiegrubb wrote:

I'd like to join in this debate but too many big words, that's all I can say on the subject.

It's called hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

Mikey23

Sorry guys... I often use big words cos it makes me sound clever. Half the time I don't know what they mean...

Mikey23

@p ... That's an amazing story. I almost said testimony but stopped myself. so you have the miracle of life and the miracle of children. Seems like someone or something is looking out for you...

Giraffoto

freddiegrubb wrote:

I'd like to join in this debate but too many big words, that's all I can say on the subject.

I saw a complete philosophy summed up today (on a t-shirt) in a very few, very short words:

Eat <censored> drink whiskey hail Satan

meursault

pinarello001 wrote:

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?

war, greed, exploitation and famine

I would argue these are the results of the mode of production, rather than related to facts about humans.

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

As above really, if we had a mode of production that kept up with our capabilities, we could use our cleverness to better effect. At the moment, all we strive for is profit. That is long out of date, and a bit pathetic.

Deconstructionism.

I think you have something here, we assume too much.

meursault

team47b wrote:

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

Don't loose your head

I do love that novel, revisited many times.

meursault

pinarello001 wrote:

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 definitely 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.

Probably with the existentialists on morality. They have done the latest thinking on it anyway. The contradiction here, is that our individual (only way we can experience anything) morals, take place within society, therefore there are two sets of concepts working at the same time.

The scope and spectrum of evolution is bigger than art and atom bombs. It includes the development from cellular organisms. I agree that morality may not have evolved and that art isn't a yardstick, more a reflection. Science itself is subject to deonstructionism, so that cannot be assumed to be the correct way forward.

meursault

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.

I would agree, until you start to try and find the facts. As we flounder, then the original concept broadens out from just biographies.

Existentialists say that all men are islands. As one man cannot experience another mans consciousness.

bianchimoon

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Ok, read the article again and the responses. I'm not entirely sure whether the author has anything meaningful to say or is having a laugh. Either way, this is light years away from my own view of the world so I don't intend to waste any more of my time on it

@ms.. I'm afraid I don't have anything constructive to say here either... Thanks for sharing

I find it interesting in a bigger picture kind of way. If there is nothing significant about humans, what is the point in anything?

There is no point in anything, why should there be? things just happen

meursault

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Ok, read the article again and the responses. I'm not entirely sure whether the author has anything meaningful to say or is having a laugh. Either way, this is light years away from my own view of the world so I don't intend to waste any more of my time on it

@ms.. I'm afraid I don't have anything constructive to say here either... Thanks for sharing

I find it interesting in a bigger picture kind of way. If there is nothing significant about humans, what is the point in anything?

There is no point in anything, why should there be? things just happen

If there is no point, why did you post, or continue to live?

BelgianBeerGeek

meursault wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Ok, read the article again and the responses. I'm not entirely sure whether the author has anything meaningful to say or is having a laugh. Either way, this is light years away from my own view of the world so I don't intend to waste any more of my time on it

@ms.. I'm afraid I don't have anything constructive to say here either... Thanks for sharing

I find it interesting in a bigger picture kind of way. If there is nothing significant about humans, what is the point in anything?

There is no point in anything, why should there be? things just happen

If there is no point, why did you post, or continue to live?

Is there a point to everything you do?

meursault

Yes and no. That's what the discussion is about. Either humans are significant or we are not.

bianchimoon

meursault wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Ok, read the article again and the responses. I'm not entirely sure whether the author has anything meaningful to say or is having a laugh. Either way, this is light years away from my own view of the world so I don't intend to waste any more of my time on it

@ms.. I'm afraid I don't have anything constructive to say here either... Thanks for sharing

I find it interesting in a bigger picture kind of way. If there is nothing significant about humans, what is the point in anything?

There is no point in anything, why should there be? things just happen

If there is no point, why did you post, or continue to live?

why did there have to be a point to my post?, I didn't have a point when i posted it, it was a random chance that i replied to yours and not one of the millions of other posts on the interverse...you think too much

Mikey23

And being 'made in the image of a supernatural creator' (note the italics), gives significance. If there is no point then there can be no significance. I know what I choose to believe. If I'm wrong then so be it. No harm done but I've led a deluded life and entirely missed the point of it...

I don't buy pick and mix philosophy. To me it's just a cop out. Surely there can only be one narrative that explains the purpose of existence. Anything else is a delusion

bianchimoon

meursault wrote:

Yes and no. That's what the discussion is about. Either humans are significant or we are not.

as carl sagan said...
“The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”

3 quids worth of chemicals, insignificamt lumps of carbon, once you realise that you can get on with the important things like enjoying your brief insignificant time here

meursault

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Ok, read the article again and the responses. I'm not entirely sure whether the author has anything meaningful to say or is having a laugh. Either way, this is light years away from my own view of the world so I don't intend to waste any more of my time on it

@ms.. I'm afraid I don't have anything constructive to say here either... Thanks for sharing

I find it interesting in a bigger picture kind of way. If there is nothing significant about humans, what is the point in anything?

There is no point in anything, why should there be? things just happen

If there is no point, why did you post, or continue to live?

why did there have to be a point to my post?, I didn't have a point when i posted it, it was a random chance that i replied to yours and not one of the millions of other posts on the interverse...you think too much

Apologies, it wasn't personal to you, I was speaking in the context of the thread.

If there is no point, why do any of us post, why do any of us live?

meursault

bianchimoon wrote:

meursault wrote:

Yes and no. That's what the discussion is about. Either humans are significant or we are not.

as carl sagan said...
“The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”

3 quids worth of chemicals, insignificamt lumps of carbon, once you realise that you can get on with the important things like enjoying your brief insignificant time here

As much as I admire and respect Sagan, there is a blatant contradiction in that paragraph. He says everything/anything we do is insignificant, then says It's up to us to save us from ourselves. If we are so insignificant why bother saving anything?

Because we live on a pale blue dot, in a tiny corner(?) of the universe, means nothing. If anything, it should fuel our hunger to find out why we have consciousness and if there is any point to anything.

meagain

"Significant" needs to be taken in context. Few individuals are significant in the context of any one area at any one time, no individual is significant in the context of the planet, never mind the universe (which is apparently so big that I try not to think about it). Many individuals are significant in their own small space/time/micro society.

meursault

meagain wrote:

"Significant" needs to be taken in context. Few individuals are significant in the context of any one area at any one time, no individual is significant in the context of the planet, never mind the universe (which is apparently so big that I try not to think about it). Many individuals are significant in their own small space/time/micro society.

Deconstruction aside, it seems rational that it would be impossible to exist without influencing anything or anybody. Scientific cause and effect. Therefore, I would propose all humans are either significant or insignificant. Before this discussion began, I have already started doubting/deconstructing the scientific method, yet, it seems the best information to go on for now.

Mikey23

Significant in the sense of having meaning and purpose to life rather than significant as important. I think that we have a rather inflated view of our own importance in the big scheme of things. But I suppose that's only to be expected when we are each the centre of the known universe in our own understanding. If you see what I mean...

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

Significant in the sense of having meaning and purpose to life rather than significant as important. I think that we have a rather inflated view of our own importance in the big scheme of things. But I suppose that's only to be expected when we are each the centre of the known universe in our own understanding. If you see what I mean...

I couldn't agree more.

The fact that we have a 'consciousness' in itself tends to make us think we are somehow superior. That sentiment 'centre of the known universe in our own understanding', just underlines the point. Without this consciousness, there is no 'ego'.

team47b

Of course there is a point/significance to existence, same as the point for all animals, same for all plants, same for all life, it is one big co-operative venture.

Jesus may well want you for a sunbeam but that far older deity, Nature, wants you for a dungheap.

The answer is a tree.

pinno

team47b wrote:

Of course there is a point/significance to existence, same as the point for all animals, same for all plants, same for all life, it is one big co-operative venture.

Jesus may well want you for a sunbeam but that far older deity, Nature, wants you for a dungheap.

The answer is a tree.

Not sure about your statement "...it is one big co-operative venture."

Within cells it is co-operative. Indeed within specific species it is co-operative. There are exceptions to this like when a male lion takes over a pride and kills the young of his predecessor.
Inter species competition is 'survival of the fittest'. So can I re-adjust your sentiment to that: Most species, especially social one's, have to co-operate to survive.

The problem with humans is that we have 'evolved' to the point that we do not see clearly the co-operation that exists to support us. We no longer see the link between production of food and eating. We have too much leisure time and we pontificate. We do not see clearly our complete and utter reliance on natural resources for our survival.
It has come to the point in human evolution that ideas of self and macro ideas of the universe have become the new form of worship:

"Science cannot yet formulate let alone satisfactoraly answer, questions such as how the first energies came from 'nothing' or into what 'realm' the universe is expanding; the model dependant 'realisms' offered in explanation, with often little prospect of empirical testing, could also be construed as just belief systems based on extreme fantasy and imagination rather than obeservabel fact." Ivor Tittawella.

There are so many belief systems and there is so much self interest that I feel we no longer have the collective capacity to agree. This inherent disagreement will eventually lead to our destruction. So whilst we pontificate on issues of 'self', 'ego', 'consciousness' and the meaning of everything, we are neglecting to address the real problems that we have created by evolving into what we are.

team47b

No I didn't mean co-operation from that point but from the perspective of the whole, not one small part. Everything co-operates, not everything does it willingly I agree. Symbiosis.