Language is a conceptual tool like math. Neither of these systems can remain useful to the user if they remain closed off for the reason that it is necessary to make amendments and additions upon new discoveries and revelations. Just as math has its paradoxes, so too does language. For what seem like solid systems for structuring our concepts if one searches deep enough the frayed edges and fragile principles are revealed. Fanciful as it may seem, this is old news to many thinkers, however it may be to those who dabble very little in such obscure profundities. It is only through authority and tradition that we have become so confident in the use of language. After all, the exception of communication is debate and discussion of semantics because it is often seen as a trivial pursuit. When language is put under the microscope and examined the most toxic intellectual problem is then revealed, that there is no guarantee on language's validity.
It is a mistake to presuppose the soundness of the language system and all its consequences. Human language is a system of communication that was developed by ignorant entities. It is used to try and describe what we think we may know, yet not only do we make mistakes in using the tool, we don't have all the information to really understand how it all fits together.
Language is, at its fundamental level, a system that takes at least one thing, but usually a group of things, and gives it a sensory acceptable identifier. In this manner we are "saying" in symbol, sign, gesture, etc. that one thing is, in "fact", another thing. This is a contradiction. Regardless of what we say or think a thing is, it is absolutely itself and only itself in reality. We can’t ever truly know the reality of the thing because we are born ignorant and isolated from reality, so we learned to develop systems of thought that we felt accurately described that reality based on our experiences and the evidence we have suggesting that those approximations are probably true. Language is in essence taking something that is meaningless to us as it is and attributing qualities to it such that it becomes associated with complex concepts. In this way noise becomes speech, marks become symbols, movements become signs, etc. and so then we can communicate.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Playing Nice
Most families in the U.S. are familiar owning a pet. Having pets is also common in many other countries as well and it can be an indication of prosperity. Caring for another entity shows that you possess the means of not only taking care of yourself but others as well. Children are often raised along side animal companions and the typical family will develop such a strong connection with the pet that it is often considered "a part of the family". People actually cry and mourn their pets just as they do their human companions. It's no revelation to pet owners that the bond they develop with their animals counterparts are shared in the emotional capacities of the pets they care for. Though non-human animals cannot tell their human companions that they love and appreciate them in a manner that we can fully comprehend they do show it in their own way. We do manage to understand to some degree what their behaviors mean such that we do understand them in some ways.
Humans and some other animals can pick up on body language signs and verbal ques that transgress specie boundary lines; for example it is easy to tell when a dog is growling or that when a cat is hissing that they are in a potentially aggressive emotional state. Specie boundary lines are merely arbitrary lines assigned by humans in order to organize our world in a way that we understand; a way that is useful to us. Tracing back our evolutionary lineages we can see that we have common ancestors and share noticeable similarities in these respects. It is within this biological paradigm that we can explore similarities we share which are commensurable.
Since there are so many different varieties of animals, with varying degrees of complexities, the emotional capacities for them are dependent upon the species as well as the individual animal itself. Each animal goes through its own set of experiences in life and has its own brain which can be wired in a variety of ways depending upon its development and its inherited genetic structure. Goldfish may be hard to develop a bond with because they lack complex brains that would allow for complex emotional feelings. Dogs and cats, however, have larger, more complex brains and are capable of a greater number of "higher order" brain functions. In this case the phrase "higher order" means similar in complexity and capacity. Studies have shown that typical house pets like dogs can experience different a variety of different emotional states. They can be traumatized, feel depressed, anxious, experience happiness, et cetera, but again this is rather obvious to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time observing or interacting with such animals.
According to the complexity and capacity of an animal or species of animal it may or may not have the ability or capacity to experience certain states of emotion when compared to others. As a consequence some animals like bugs may lack the capacity for many of the emotional states humans and other larger animals experience. They may feel pain which causes their bodies to take specific uncontrolled and un-understandable reaction in order to avoid the pain. Their behavior may be more driven by something like "instinct" which is simply a rudimentary collection of impulses that directs bodily their actions.
Certainly, beetles don't philosophize or worry about the issue of global warming. This isn't to say that these little robot like critters aren't worth considering, it simply means that it is more likely for a bond to be struck between two entities that share more similar capacities. So, someone's value of them may only extend to the degree that they recognize it is wrong to cause pain to any living thing. It may not be the case that each human agrees to this principle however. As stated before we share similarities in many respects and in many varying degrees but it is also a possibility for an human being to completely lack a certain emotional capacity or to have it over ruled by some other function. Psychopathic persons may be an example of this.
Human beings develop relationships based on similarities, not on differences as the old proverbial statement suggests that "opposites attract". Studies show that it is more likely for people to bond with others in which they share similar interests. The idea is that the more interest are shared the deeper the emotional connection can go. The fact that humans can bond with other species of animals is a profound emotional dilemma.
Human beings have been hunting animals for thousands of years. Sometime along the line we were able to ditch our running shoes and spears and put animals into cages. In every country all over the world and in nearly every culture it is a way of life to kill animals and consume animals. Most people in America and in the rest of the world eat meat on a regular basis. Human beings aren't the only animals that eat other animals either, there are many other animals that are meat eaters as well. Consuming the meat of other animals is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed some species that feed exclusively on meat to flourish, such as the lion or shark.
Since human beings are typically moral creatures we are placed into this dilemma according to our evolutionary development and our overall disposition toward meat eating. Evolution isn't a guarantee of a flawless operational system for any organism. Evolution is simply a process that describes the way organisms will change and adapt to their local environments in a manner that is "good enough" for their survival. Those that are better at adapting to their environments than others typically do better, but the point is this: there is no guarantee that contradictions and disorder won't arise within the evolutionary system. Though contradictions and disorder are present within the system when their level of occurrence is outweighed by the sum of successes within the system species thrive. An easy way to understand this concept is to think about all the different types of genetic deformities we are familiar with such as the development of persons with missing or extra limbs, clef pallets, blindness, allergies, Down's Syndrome, autism, dwarfism, misshapen or asymmetrical formation of body parts, et cetera. There are many types of mutations to consider and while some can be harmful there are some which are neither detrimental nor beneficial. They are simply benign or harmless. For the organism to survive its environment it must possess more beneficial traits than detrimental traits
So, if human beings enjoy eating meat but are also morally driven creatures then where in lies the justification from a moral standpoint to inflict harm upon other animals that share a degree of their emotional capacities? If we consider just the human species for a moment we can understand from what method we might seek to operate morally at a practical level. Simply because we bond with certain individuals in the human race doesn't mean that we should be able to harm or destroy the individuals we have not yet bonded with or never will. We understand that we each have differences but we also understand that we at least share the capacity to experience complex emotional states to a very a degree and within that understanding there lies the potential for an emotional bond. We may not feel as upset if some tragedy has befallen a person or a community of people with whom we are unfamiliar or unconnected with but that doesn't mean we don't sympathize or pity them in their circumstances to a degree. People all over the world are willing to donate their money, time, and other resources to helping out strangers on the other side of the planet who have been subjected to some level of suffering.
It is hard for most humans to stare at a picture of a starving child, no matter how far removed that child is from their social sphere without feeling some kind empathy toward their suffering. This is possible because we are not only built similarly but because we also experience occurrences in our lives that are similar. It is the misery of an innocent child that strikes a cord in many a philanthropist's heart. Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to understand how the adaptation of social bonding could serve a beneficial role in the success of species. How is it possible that this adaption could have extended beyond the boundary line of species? Why is it that a dog is willing to nurse the offspring of a separate specie of animal and how is it that humans can develop an emotional attachment to their pets if it seems to serve no obvious beneficial purpose for the good Samaritan? It is likely that the adaptation from which animals developed the ability to bond socially, that is to develop an emotional connection with others, was a general mutation that was never restrictive enough to keep the bond from happening outside the realm of genetic compatiblism.
Though we humans do not develop to the exact same degree emotionally we develop to a degree that is similar enough that relationships can form and bonds can occur. To this degree we can also include animals that are outside our own specie. It is also the case that when the degree is highest we find more ability to bond. It is like having more hands to reach out to others with. From this understanding our morality can conflict with our evolutionary appetites. We can both love animals as companions and love the taste of their organic products. The ultimate question is where does this place us? To what degree should we recognize our moral values and to what degree should we limit our actions?
I am not the type that likes to see any amount of suffering. To cause harm to other people and to other things is a constraint I am able to recognize and bare from a moral standpoint. I should say that "if I cannot stand the suffering of a human being then why should I condone the unnecessary suffering of a non-human organism under the same circumstance that suffers at any level". It is well within my ability to live without causing the degree of harm to animals that is present in the meat and dairy industries which provide animal products for humans to consume. So, as to live a life that is conducive to my moral values I elect not to consume animal products in as reasonable a manner as is possible. Until I can reason that there is justification in consuming animal products then I may still enjoy the taste of animal products yet live without satisfying my pallet in that manner.
UPDATE: The day after the initial post of this blog I came across this news article in my daily casual browsing of the news.
Bugs Can Solve Big Problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33974286/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Humans and some other animals can pick up on body language signs and verbal ques that transgress specie boundary lines; for example it is easy to tell when a dog is growling or that when a cat is hissing that they are in a potentially aggressive emotional state. Specie boundary lines are merely arbitrary lines assigned by humans in order to organize our world in a way that we understand; a way that is useful to us. Tracing back our evolutionary lineages we can see that we have common ancestors and share noticeable similarities in these respects. It is within this biological paradigm that we can explore similarities we share which are commensurable.
Since there are so many different varieties of animals, with varying degrees of complexities, the emotional capacities for them are dependent upon the species as well as the individual animal itself. Each animal goes through its own set of experiences in life and has its own brain which can be wired in a variety of ways depending upon its development and its inherited genetic structure. Goldfish may be hard to develop a bond with because they lack complex brains that would allow for complex emotional feelings. Dogs and cats, however, have larger, more complex brains and are capable of a greater number of "higher order" brain functions. In this case the phrase "higher order" means similar in complexity and capacity. Studies have shown that typical house pets like dogs can experience different a variety of different emotional states. They can be traumatized, feel depressed, anxious, experience happiness, et cetera, but again this is rather obvious to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time observing or interacting with such animals.
According to the complexity and capacity of an animal or species of animal it may or may not have the ability or capacity to experience certain states of emotion when compared to others. As a consequence some animals like bugs may lack the capacity for many of the emotional states humans and other larger animals experience. They may feel pain which causes their bodies to take specific uncontrolled and un-understandable reaction in order to avoid the pain. Their behavior may be more driven by something like "instinct" which is simply a rudimentary collection of impulses that directs bodily their actions.
Certainly, beetles don't philosophize or worry about the issue of global warming. This isn't to say that these little robot like critters aren't worth considering, it simply means that it is more likely for a bond to be struck between two entities that share more similar capacities. So, someone's value of them may only extend to the degree that they recognize it is wrong to cause pain to any living thing. It may not be the case that each human agrees to this principle however. As stated before we share similarities in many respects and in many varying degrees but it is also a possibility for an human being to completely lack a certain emotional capacity or to have it over ruled by some other function. Psychopathic persons may be an example of this.
Human beings develop relationships based on similarities, not on differences as the old proverbial statement suggests that "opposites attract". Studies show that it is more likely for people to bond with others in which they share similar interests. The idea is that the more interest are shared the deeper the emotional connection can go. The fact that humans can bond with other species of animals is a profound emotional dilemma.
Human beings have been hunting animals for thousands of years. Sometime along the line we were able to ditch our running shoes and spears and put animals into cages. In every country all over the world and in nearly every culture it is a way of life to kill animals and consume animals. Most people in America and in the rest of the world eat meat on a regular basis. Human beings aren't the only animals that eat other animals either, there are many other animals that are meat eaters as well. Consuming the meat of other animals is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed some species that feed exclusively on meat to flourish, such as the lion or shark.
Since human beings are typically moral creatures we are placed into this dilemma according to our evolutionary development and our overall disposition toward meat eating. Evolution isn't a guarantee of a flawless operational system for any organism. Evolution is simply a process that describes the way organisms will change and adapt to their local environments in a manner that is "good enough" for their survival. Those that are better at adapting to their environments than others typically do better, but the point is this: there is no guarantee that contradictions and disorder won't arise within the evolutionary system. Though contradictions and disorder are present within the system when their level of occurrence is outweighed by the sum of successes within the system species thrive. An easy way to understand this concept is to think about all the different types of genetic deformities we are familiar with such as the development of persons with missing or extra limbs, clef pallets, blindness, allergies, Down's Syndrome, autism, dwarfism, misshapen or asymmetrical formation of body parts, et cetera. There are many types of mutations to consider and while some can be harmful there are some which are neither detrimental nor beneficial. They are simply benign or harmless. For the organism to survive its environment it must possess more beneficial traits than detrimental traits
So, if human beings enjoy eating meat but are also morally driven creatures then where in lies the justification from a moral standpoint to inflict harm upon other animals that share a degree of their emotional capacities? If we consider just the human species for a moment we can understand from what method we might seek to operate morally at a practical level. Simply because we bond with certain individuals in the human race doesn't mean that we should be able to harm or destroy the individuals we have not yet bonded with or never will. We understand that we each have differences but we also understand that we at least share the capacity to experience complex emotional states to a very a degree and within that understanding there lies the potential for an emotional bond. We may not feel as upset if some tragedy has befallen a person or a community of people with whom we are unfamiliar or unconnected with but that doesn't mean we don't sympathize or pity them in their circumstances to a degree. People all over the world are willing to donate their money, time, and other resources to helping out strangers on the other side of the planet who have been subjected to some level of suffering.
It is hard for most humans to stare at a picture of a starving child, no matter how far removed that child is from their social sphere without feeling some kind empathy toward their suffering. This is possible because we are not only built similarly but because we also experience occurrences in our lives that are similar. It is the misery of an innocent child that strikes a cord in many a philanthropist's heart. Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to understand how the adaptation of social bonding could serve a beneficial role in the success of species. How is it possible that this adaption could have extended beyond the boundary line of species? Why is it that a dog is willing to nurse the offspring of a separate specie of animal and how is it that humans can develop an emotional attachment to their pets if it seems to serve no obvious beneficial purpose for the good Samaritan? It is likely that the adaptation from which animals developed the ability to bond socially, that is to develop an emotional connection with others, was a general mutation that was never restrictive enough to keep the bond from happening outside the realm of genetic compatiblism.
Though we humans do not develop to the exact same degree emotionally we develop to a degree that is similar enough that relationships can form and bonds can occur. To this degree we can also include animals that are outside our own specie. It is also the case that when the degree is highest we find more ability to bond. It is like having more hands to reach out to others with. From this understanding our morality can conflict with our evolutionary appetites. We can both love animals as companions and love the taste of their organic products. The ultimate question is where does this place us? To what degree should we recognize our moral values and to what degree should we limit our actions?
I am not the type that likes to see any amount of suffering. To cause harm to other people and to other things is a constraint I am able to recognize and bare from a moral standpoint. I should say that "if I cannot stand the suffering of a human being then why should I condone the unnecessary suffering of a non-human organism under the same circumstance that suffers at any level". It is well within my ability to live without causing the degree of harm to animals that is present in the meat and dairy industries which provide animal products for humans to consume. So, as to live a life that is conducive to my moral values I elect not to consume animal products in as reasonable a manner as is possible. Until I can reason that there is justification in consuming animal products then I may still enjoy the taste of animal products yet live without satisfying my pallet in that manner.
UPDATE: The day after the initial post of this blog I came across this news article in my daily casual browsing of the news.
Bugs Can Solve Big Problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33974286/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Study: Monkey moms act like human ones
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33227051/ns/technology_and_science-science/
UPDATE: Further study detailing the emotional capacities of animals.What chimps can teach us
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/12/2096519.aspxWednesday, September 30, 2009
Movement Negates Solidity
*Though the theory described below can be arrived at independently by any person, as was the case for me, through logical rumination portions of this post reflect ideas and specific wording borrowed by me from a book by Charles Seife's in Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea.
It seems there are only 3 possibilities in which a universe could exist (2 if you deny the universe which is made up of nothing as a possibility). Either a universe is completely solid, that is it is filled completely with matter such that there are no gaps, a universe is completely empty of all matter, or a universe is a combination of matter and empty space. It may seem logical to conclude that a universe that has nothing is nothing, a stance I would be in support of. It should be rather obvious that a universe in which there is only matter could not be the universe as we know it, if only for the reason that we know that there is motion. It is quite simple to understand that for there to be movement there needs to be empty space. Therefore, we must live in a universe that has matter but at the same time also lacks matter.
This scenario once again leads to the paradox of nothingness. How can it be that nothing exists as it is an outright contradiction of itself? It may be that such an understanding is a misrepresentation of the reality of the universe. Try not to think of empty space as nothingness but as a void instead. Voids can exist between objects, but nothingness, it seems, is too powerful as it negates any objects in existence. Nothingness is the contradiction and it is the universe that cannot exist. The paradox seems to have disappeared with this clarification of ideas. It is not the case that a void is the same as "nothingness," in fact this idea of nothingness itself is a logical mistake. In reality the void or infinity can be looked at as a state of neutrality and not a antithesis of matter/energy, which would be nothingness.
It seems there are only 3 possibilities in which a universe could exist (2 if you deny the universe which is made up of nothing as a possibility). Either a universe is completely solid, that is it is filled completely with matter such that there are no gaps, a universe is completely empty of all matter, or a universe is a combination of matter and empty space. It may seem logical to conclude that a universe that has nothing is nothing, a stance I would be in support of. It should be rather obvious that a universe in which there is only matter could not be the universe as we know it, if only for the reason that we know that there is motion. It is quite simple to understand that for there to be movement there needs to be empty space. Therefore, we must live in a universe that has matter but at the same time also lacks matter.
This scenario once again leads to the paradox of nothingness. How can it be that nothing exists as it is an outright contradiction of itself? It may be that such an understanding is a misrepresentation of the reality of the universe. Try not to think of empty space as nothingness but as a void instead. Voids can exist between objects, but nothingness, it seems, is too powerful as it negates any objects in existence. Nothingness is the contradiction and it is the universe that cannot exist. The paradox seems to have disappeared with this clarification of ideas. It is not the case that a void is the same as "nothingness," in fact this idea of nothingness itself is a logical mistake. In reality the void or infinity can be looked at as a state of neutrality and not a antithesis of matter/energy, which would be nothingness.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Pessimism and Paradox of Meaning
Suppose for a moment that you are not religious, that is you do not believe in god or a higher power. Suppose you view the occurrence of life and consciousness as a gradual process shaped by a series of necessary and eventual processes that are apart of a rational and logical universe. Being a conscious item yourself you recognize that you are apart of this logical universe so you understand that you cannot do what is impossible and can only do what is possible. You further recognize that you are driven by the circumstances of your nature, that is by your genetic make up, your environment, etc.
You know that you will die one day but that simple fact does not burden you so much that you do not pursue goals and enjoy achievements, that you give up on having fun, that you do not proceed through avenues that allow you to explore your curiosities, that you do not love and value other people, things, and certain ideals. It is the fact that all humans, religious or non-religious, do all of the aforementioned behaviors and in so doing are able to find meaning in our lives. Being the logical character you are you know that death is imminent. Though the universe has produced you, it will also take you away. The universe is not stagnant, it is always moving and all matter in it is moving which simply means it is ever changing. Even the rock will turn to dust over time. Most people today are familiar with a specific law in physics concerning energy that states energy can never be lost, it simply changes in form.
The universe is moving this very minute. It is in a state of increasing expansion which means that all matter is spreading out in all directions building up the distance between each particle of matter. If this rate keeps up, and according to the latest scientific evidence there seems to be no reason to suggest it may be slowing down, then eventually gravity will lose its grip and all particles will separate to their most fundamental states leaving them isolated and cold. Very very cold. The great expansion of our universe means that all life will at some time be unable to exist. Life will have become an impossibility.
Perhaps the universe stops expanding and starts a process of receding back in on itself. This idea is known as the great collapse or the great crunch. In this scenario the universe and all matter will be squeezed into an ever continuing closer and closer space. The space will become so compact that energies will melt together into a great burning mass of very solid and very dense matter. Under these circumstances it will also be impossible for life to exist.
These models of the universe are not inspiring to most people and with good reason. As living beings we are naturally inclined to favor being alive over being dead, or not existing. In fact both models of the universe are rather pessimistic conclusions to have to consider. If we will all die eventually then what is the purpose of existence at all or is there even a purpose? Maybe life is just a phenomenon and purpose is a natural human misunderstanding about the true nature of reality. I would argue that life is simply a logical phenomenon of the universe and it is not special. I would further argue that though the outlook for the universe looks pessimistic when considered from this angle we must understand that there was never any rule or law that necessitated that the universe be conducive to an optimistic human understanding of reality. It seems that life is simply a consequence of a pessimistic reality.
One might argue that religion saves us from this awful place. That indeed the way we understand reality is a pessimistic notion and that god will save us from our doom. To arguments with religious premises I maintain that so long as they remain outside logical and rational models of framework that can be scientifically tested there is no reason to consider their conclusions as valid or probable outcomes. Another argument to consider is one that accepts that all life will one day die, that all humans will one day die however, that in the moment or time frames of our conscious lives we can still value, appreciate, love, etc. right now then for that reason there is meaning in life and that in this way there is continued purpose in our endeavors and we should continue to pursue our goals and live our lives.
Further still we may pass on meaning in our lives after our deaths to those after us. In this way an exchange of meaning continues to flow from person to person, from generation to generation, and so on. There is a paradox that still remains under these arguments of purpose and meaning. Though the meaning can be real at a moment and can survive through transference upon one's death through a seemingly endless chain the fact still remains that the chain will one day be broken. The universe will destroy the life it owns and all meaning will be destroyed with the last breath of our final successor.
You know that you will die one day but that simple fact does not burden you so much that you do not pursue goals and enjoy achievements, that you give up on having fun, that you do not proceed through avenues that allow you to explore your curiosities, that you do not love and value other people, things, and certain ideals. It is the fact that all humans, religious or non-religious, do all of the aforementioned behaviors and in so doing are able to find meaning in our lives. Being the logical character you are you know that death is imminent. Though the universe has produced you, it will also take you away. The universe is not stagnant, it is always moving and all matter in it is moving which simply means it is ever changing. Even the rock will turn to dust over time. Most people today are familiar with a specific law in physics concerning energy that states energy can never be lost, it simply changes in form.
The universe is moving this very minute. It is in a state of increasing expansion which means that all matter is spreading out in all directions building up the distance between each particle of matter. If this rate keeps up, and according to the latest scientific evidence there seems to be no reason to suggest it may be slowing down, then eventually gravity will lose its grip and all particles will separate to their most fundamental states leaving them isolated and cold. Very very cold. The great expansion of our universe means that all life will at some time be unable to exist. Life will have become an impossibility.
Perhaps the universe stops expanding and starts a process of receding back in on itself. This idea is known as the great collapse or the great crunch. In this scenario the universe and all matter will be squeezed into an ever continuing closer and closer space. The space will become so compact that energies will melt together into a great burning mass of very solid and very dense matter. Under these circumstances it will also be impossible for life to exist.
These models of the universe are not inspiring to most people and with good reason. As living beings we are naturally inclined to favor being alive over being dead, or not existing. In fact both models of the universe are rather pessimistic conclusions to have to consider. If we will all die eventually then what is the purpose of existence at all or is there even a purpose? Maybe life is just a phenomenon and purpose is a natural human misunderstanding about the true nature of reality. I would argue that life is simply a logical phenomenon of the universe and it is not special. I would further argue that though the outlook for the universe looks pessimistic when considered from this angle we must understand that there was never any rule or law that necessitated that the universe be conducive to an optimistic human understanding of reality. It seems that life is simply a consequence of a pessimistic reality.
One might argue that religion saves us from this awful place. That indeed the way we understand reality is a pessimistic notion and that god will save us from our doom. To arguments with religious premises I maintain that so long as they remain outside logical and rational models of framework that can be scientifically tested there is no reason to consider their conclusions as valid or probable outcomes. Another argument to consider is one that accepts that all life will one day die, that all humans will one day die however, that in the moment or time frames of our conscious lives we can still value, appreciate, love, etc. right now then for that reason there is meaning in life and that in this way there is continued purpose in our endeavors and we should continue to pursue our goals and live our lives.
Further still we may pass on meaning in our lives after our deaths to those after us. In this way an exchange of meaning continues to flow from person to person, from generation to generation, and so on. There is a paradox that still remains under these arguments of purpose and meaning. Though the meaning can be real at a moment and can survive through transference upon one's death through a seemingly endless chain the fact still remains that the chain will one day be broken. The universe will destroy the life it owns and all meaning will be destroyed with the last breath of our final successor.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thoughts about Nothing
I find my mind reaches to many areas of thought thinking and analyzing about many things but one particular area arises a particular interest. It is a paradox, not that there are paradoxes which I do not recognize so far, yet this one seems special. It is a paradox that I feel represents the most fundamental abilities of human understanding, yet gets overlooked in some manner. The paradox I am describing is the conceptualization of "nothing". Nothing by definition should not exist, therefore why give it a name? For example we could say that: here in this basket we have some fruit and in this basket we have nothing. Some may argue it is more appropriate to say we have "no fruit" or "fruit is lacking in this basket". On the surface it sounds like a resolution, that we should simply change our words in order to reflect an absence of "something" rather than to recognize that particular lack of something as something itself, that is by giving "it" a name.
However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.
The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?
So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.
However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.
The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?
So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Force vs. Fraud
Thomas Hobbes once pointed out that "force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues". This is true for competition in general, after all what is war but a competition with the highest stakes. Human beings are constantly competing against one another for resource and recognition and we compete in teams as well as individually, that is mono e mono. Competition seems an obvious consequence of inherently selfish creatures and if we look closely enough we can see degrees of competition everywhere. Competition happens from two different angles. There is force and then there is fraud. Force is the ability to physically overcome your competitors and fraud is the ability to outsmart them. To possess them both is to have quite the team.
Competition in the human universe is extremely complex. It goes from Wrigley Field to Wall Street to your local bar. Sexual competition is particularly interesting and has some interesting patterns to note. Scientifically speaking, men are on average physically stronger than women, it's a matter of genetics and it is obvious. What may have been overlooked, ironically though, is that in the competition between the sexes if the men had a monopoly on force wouldn't the women find some way to make up for this deficit? Of course, they had to adapt to utilize fraud.
Think about this. Men compete as body builders and women compete as pageant queens. The body builder goes for muscle definition and nobody cares about his personality or his mental agility. The pageant queen is a different beast however. She must possess both good looks and charm. The pageant queen must prove herself as a mental force, so to speak. She must speak eloquently, carry herself well, be charming, possess good social skills, etc. Keeping this in mind we can examine other notions we have about women in general. Stereotypically, they are known for their gossiping qualities, that is the passing on of social information and often the manipulation of such "information" in a way that is beneficial to them. Manipulation is the key to understanding fraud and there is an entire history of contraptions meant to manipulate the woman's figure to make her look, smell, feel, and even taste more attractive. There are push-up bras that make their breasts seem fuller and more desirable, gut tuckers that hide flab, cosmetics which enhance features and cover up blemishes, perfumes that smell pleasant, even lotion to keep the skin feeling smooth to the touch. It is safe to say that for all of the 5 senses women have a multitude of products to manipulate them.
It is true that men have also learned to manipulate the sensory perceptions we all share but comparatively the industries for each sex don't even compare. However, just as women have become very well suited to manipulate their environment through fraud the men had done very well to manipulate the environment through physical force, or even the mere threat of force. Countless statistics on the general behavior of males outright labels us the aggressive counterpart to the human species. Testosterone is a naturally occurring chemicals in our bodies however men have far more of it than women do and through scientific research we have determined that it plays a key role in male social habits. It makes us more competitive, more likely to take risks, and more aggressive. Far more men are charged with crimes related to physical violence than women. In men their is an inherent drive toward physical dominance, so it has been force from which we have gained our historial standing.
Since man has gone through the process of self domestication we can look at the rest of the animal kingdom for a quick case study on male social interaction. The male beasts of the jungle and of the Serengeti still battle for physical dominance. In the proverbial animal kingdom it really pays to be big and strong. To this end the male who comes out on top is first to feast and first to mate thereby securing his genetic future.
Competition in the human universe is extremely complex. It goes from Wrigley Field to Wall Street to your local bar. Sexual competition is particularly interesting and has some interesting patterns to note. Scientifically speaking, men are on average physically stronger than women, it's a matter of genetics and it is obvious. What may have been overlooked, ironically though, is that in the competition between the sexes if the men had a monopoly on force wouldn't the women find some way to make up for this deficit? Of course, they had to adapt to utilize fraud.
Think about this. Men compete as body builders and women compete as pageant queens. The body builder goes for muscle definition and nobody cares about his personality or his mental agility. The pageant queen is a different beast however. She must possess both good looks and charm. The pageant queen must prove herself as a mental force, so to speak. She must speak eloquently, carry herself well, be charming, possess good social skills, etc. Keeping this in mind we can examine other notions we have about women in general. Stereotypically, they are known for their gossiping qualities, that is the passing on of social information and often the manipulation of such "information" in a way that is beneficial to them. Manipulation is the key to understanding fraud and there is an entire history of contraptions meant to manipulate the woman's figure to make her look, smell, feel, and even taste more attractive. There are push-up bras that make their breasts seem fuller and more desirable, gut tuckers that hide flab, cosmetics which enhance features and cover up blemishes, perfumes that smell pleasant, even lotion to keep the skin feeling smooth to the touch. It is safe to say that for all of the 5 senses women have a multitude of products to manipulate them.
It is true that men have also learned to manipulate the sensory perceptions we all share but comparatively the industries for each sex don't even compare. However, just as women have become very well suited to manipulate their environment through fraud the men had done very well to manipulate the environment through physical force, or even the mere threat of force. Countless statistics on the general behavior of males outright labels us the aggressive counterpart to the human species. Testosterone is a naturally occurring chemicals in our bodies however men have far more of it than women do and through scientific research we have determined that it plays a key role in male social habits. It makes us more competitive, more likely to take risks, and more aggressive. Far more men are charged with crimes related to physical violence than women. In men their is an inherent drive toward physical dominance, so it has been force from which we have gained our historial standing.
Since man has gone through the process of self domestication we can look at the rest of the animal kingdom for a quick case study on male social interaction. The male beasts of the jungle and of the Serengeti still battle for physical dominance. In the proverbial animal kingdom it really pays to be big and strong. To this end the male who comes out on top is first to feast and first to mate thereby securing his genetic future.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Everyone Wants to be a Hero
We are fascinated by heroes. We adore them in our novels of fiction and we praise them with media coverage in real life. There is a social component to human nature, that is, we seek the approval of our peers. Those who are not leaders dream to be. We are compelled to risk our standings and sometimes our lives for the chance to prove ourselves to the greater audience of mankind. I think this is just a personal security device that is ultimately an attempt to validate ourselves as important persons within the group. Human beings have a strong desire to eradicate or hide our deficiencies and given the opportunity we will accept the challenge which defies our collective values so long as that value is strongly enough recognized by the individual.
People make mistakes though. There are those compelled by ignorance, or faulty conceptions of reality, who believe that their determined efforts will gain the praise they seek. Suicide bombers are an example of a group of people who mistakenly believe they will be rewarded with the praise of the almighty god for such heroism and sacrifice. It is because people are inherently selfish that we do kind acts. We sacrifice our resources, health, and sometimes our lives because we crave the possibility of immortality of praise. So that we do so doesn't mean that we do not care about others and that we care only for ourselves rather it means that we justifications of beneficence are always based or rooted in selfish ends, as all perceived choices in human actions are made.
Superman devoted his life to the greater good, to helping others, to upholding the American way of life. We can put ourselves in his shoes and fashion a taste of the virtues he accomplishes because they are so detailed in the comics and movies. Superman wasn't human but the same rules apply to all life. Life, as it is known is inherently selfish for the reason that evolution necessitates it. Those life forms that weren't interested in survival would not have made it, therefore they would not have successfully passed on their genes.
Heroes are not superbeings. They are normal people who managed to successfully pull off attempts at securing their values, which so happen to be conducive to the majority values of the time. Heroes usually reveal themselves to collect on the praise they expect from their peers but occasionally they are anonymous. Rarely they are anonymous. They usually get interviewed and get all worked up emotionally and sometimes cry not because they made altruism a reality but because their sacrifices were reconized and their values were validated by the greatest audience. For those that are anonymous they are truely devoted to a higher power. They are commited to believing they shall be rewarded in the afterlife. There is however a minuscule fraction that do not answer to man nor god. This is a group that is both rational yet determined in their values yet they still seek something and that is only personal validation. They seek to appease their personal insecurities which rule their lives.
People make mistakes though. There are those compelled by ignorance, or faulty conceptions of reality, who believe that their determined efforts will gain the praise they seek. Suicide bombers are an example of a group of people who mistakenly believe they will be rewarded with the praise of the almighty god for such heroism and sacrifice. It is because people are inherently selfish that we do kind acts. We sacrifice our resources, health, and sometimes our lives because we crave the possibility of immortality of praise. So that we do so doesn't mean that we do not care about others and that we care only for ourselves rather it means that we justifications of beneficence are always based or rooted in selfish ends, as all perceived choices in human actions are made.
Superman devoted his life to the greater good, to helping others, to upholding the American way of life. We can put ourselves in his shoes and fashion a taste of the virtues he accomplishes because they are so detailed in the comics and movies. Superman wasn't human but the same rules apply to all life. Life, as it is known is inherently selfish for the reason that evolution necessitates it. Those life forms that weren't interested in survival would not have made it, therefore they would not have successfully passed on their genes.
Heroes are not superbeings. They are normal people who managed to successfully pull off attempts at securing their values, which so happen to be conducive to the majority values of the time. Heroes usually reveal themselves to collect on the praise they expect from their peers but occasionally they are anonymous. Rarely they are anonymous. They usually get interviewed and get all worked up emotionally and sometimes cry not because they made altruism a reality but because their sacrifices were reconized and their values were validated by the greatest audience. For those that are anonymous they are truely devoted to a higher power. They are commited to believing they shall be rewarded in the afterlife. There is however a minuscule fraction that do not answer to man nor god. This is a group that is both rational yet determined in their values yet they still seek something and that is only personal validation. They seek to appease their personal insecurities which rule their lives.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Morality of Animals
Human beings are animals. If life evolved then we are related to some degree not only to primates but to all animals at some point in the gigantic evolutionary family tree. The closer we are genetically to our ancestors the more we seem to care. As a matter of fact the more directly linked to any situation that carries moral weight the more we appear to care. The more we can distance ourselves from others the less obligation we feel to them. This is a typical human characteristic. There are exceptions when it comes to morality however, since we have sufficient evidence to conclude that certain moral traits are obviously lacking or overruled in some individuals. We cannot force others into a certain disposition however we can influence the ignorant to realize certain things.
If we feel moral obligations to one another as humans then is it absurd to think that it is possible that we feel moral obligations to other animals? After all, the evidence suggests we do, that is, that the morality we recognize in some degree is not shed between species. There are people who feel compelled to treat other animals with respect and to not cause harm to other living creatures. It is because of this attitude about life that I would suggest morality isn't an exclusive human function. Further evidence perhaps could be the circumstances we observe in other animal behavior such as care for young; traits humans share. Still, others would argue that free will changes the dichotomy between human morality and other animal morality. Provisionally, free will has seemed illusory therefore I don't suspect it holds any weight on the arguments based in morality.
Evolution progresses in degrees, that is, changes occur at every level and that determining distinctness becomes difficult. It is not to say distinctions are irrelevant or impossible rather they serve as a marker that fulfills some intuitive response to categorizing the world that humans seem to require. Yet, this categorization needn't be perfect it simply needs to be good enough for the time being. Established categories are often changed and updated according to the available evidence we have concerning particular groups of things. It is an ongoing process but it demands a provisional understanding of life. Life is changing, that is a consequence to motion/time. Morality is no different. There is no fundamental law of morality. No rule that can be stated which will last forever. Morality is simply a product of what an individual feels toward the greater community of beings and those feelings can be alter, removed, or added upon.
If one feels compelled to recognize other animal rights based on some moral understanding then it is a product of their disposition. If someone feels compelled to base their social decisions on causing harm to others then the morality of the situations necessarily includes other animals which feel pain. If one recognizes no moral obligations then they are at odds with the majority in that most people feel some moral obligations, however varying. It may be unfair to that individual that has no moral constraints but it is likely that they will be limited in their actions so far is necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of morality. All social morality is composed of is an average of the perceived moral obligations of the group.
If we feel moral obligations to one another as humans then is it absurd to think that it is possible that we feel moral obligations to other animals? After all, the evidence suggests we do, that is, that the morality we recognize in some degree is not shed between species. There are people who feel compelled to treat other animals with respect and to not cause harm to other living creatures. It is because of this attitude about life that I would suggest morality isn't an exclusive human function. Further evidence perhaps could be the circumstances we observe in other animal behavior such as care for young; traits humans share. Still, others would argue that free will changes the dichotomy between human morality and other animal morality. Provisionally, free will has seemed illusory therefore I don't suspect it holds any weight on the arguments based in morality.
Evolution progresses in degrees, that is, changes occur at every level and that determining distinctness becomes difficult. It is not to say distinctions are irrelevant or impossible rather they serve as a marker that fulfills some intuitive response to categorizing the world that humans seem to require. Yet, this categorization needn't be perfect it simply needs to be good enough for the time being. Established categories are often changed and updated according to the available evidence we have concerning particular groups of things. It is an ongoing process but it demands a provisional understanding of life. Life is changing, that is a consequence to motion/time. Morality is no different. There is no fundamental law of morality. No rule that can be stated which will last forever. Morality is simply a product of what an individual feels toward the greater community of beings and those feelings can be alter, removed, or added upon.
If one feels compelled to recognize other animal rights based on some moral understanding then it is a product of their disposition. If someone feels compelled to base their social decisions on causing harm to others then the morality of the situations necessarily includes other animals which feel pain. If one recognizes no moral obligations then they are at odds with the majority in that most people feel some moral obligations, however varying. It may be unfair to that individual that has no moral constraints but it is likely that they will be limited in their actions so far is necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of morality. All social morality is composed of is an average of the perceived moral obligations of the group.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Objectivity Renders Subjectivity Meaningless
I think that most people conceptualize objectivity and subjectivity as separate and opposing paradigms of reality. Ironically, I can't know what the experience is concerning the definition about what is objective nor what is subjective according to each person's views. Indeed, each TRUE definition for any word first discovered and coined by some unknown person usually is certainly unknowable, however we have probable suggestions logged in dictionaries that generally work as long as we don't get into debates upon the semantics. Each definition gives what is supposed to be a sufficient account of the reality that is supposed to be explained by the concept. Using words, I will try to explain this. So, here goes nothin'
At the very least subjectivity would have to be a component of an objective universe, that is, subjectivity necessarily derives from objectivity. The whole conception of "the problem of subjectivity occurring in an objective universe" is actually a misinformed perception of logical constructs. The two ideas could never exist as opposing forces because subjectivity at a certain level is contradictory such that when it is adjusted to adhere to logical constraints it actually BECOMES objectivity. Consciousness seems to fool our perceptions about subjectivity in that we recognize there are other "perspectives" from which reality is viewed so much so that we literally believe what we are seeing. Objectivity destroys subjectivity and renders it meaningless.
For example: If a person, or rather, a being that is so said to be "conscious" should recognize the concept of a pen it should be said that 1. a pen is by definition unknowable, rather a probable account of the reality anticipated and understood by what a pen is/can potentially be by the entity that so coined the term. 2. a pen needn't reflect the actual reality of the pen simply because the reality is knowable, hence to serve its purpose, that is the account of reality that is the definition, it must justifiably account for a sufficient amount of the recognizable traits in what would be considered to be a pen in the first occurrence.
Reality concerning the pen usually happens in this manner. The thing that so scribes and carries the characteristics of what is a pen is labeled a ''pen''. The reality is that there is much more to the pen that we don't yet realize and will never actually be capable of understanding. The pen exists in reality as an unknowable truth yet we aim to describe it as best as we can in our limited conceptualizations. Furthermore, each person views, tastes, touches, etc. and understands the pen independently. However, independence isn't sufficient for multiple accounts of the reality of the pen. The pen still is based in reality and it shall ALWAYS be viewed through a skewed glass.
We can never be certain what a "pen" actually is nor can we be realize what other people actually perceive to be a "pen". Yet, we can construct a model of a pen based on probability which suggests that a "pen" is likely this or that such that we agree on certain qualifications and expectations of what it means to be a "pen". This model, which is a functional model, allows people a "good enough" interpretation of what a "pen" is to follow concepts that include the pen as a property of reality. "Good enough" is a bar that is adjustable and will rise and fall with the progression of humanity. Our conceptualization of the "pen" will be adjusted according to what we come to understand about reality. Our entire understanding of the pen is provisional.
Eventually, we will minimize the uncertainty that surrounds the nature of things, that is, we will gain a better understanding of what a "pen" is. So long as these processes are based in an objective universe then they can by implication be understood according to the laws associated with science. Basically, what is subjective to you is really a lost thought brought into the center of your understanding. This "lost thought" can eventually be reclaimed by outside interpretations and logged in scientific inquiry. It is possible to understand at a fundamental level what you experience to a degree according to science such that subjectivity is rendered meaningless.
At the very least subjectivity would have to be a component of an objective universe, that is, subjectivity necessarily derives from objectivity. The whole conception of "the problem of subjectivity occurring in an objective universe" is actually a misinformed perception of logical constructs. The two ideas could never exist as opposing forces because subjectivity at a certain level is contradictory such that when it is adjusted to adhere to logical constraints it actually BECOMES objectivity. Consciousness seems to fool our perceptions about subjectivity in that we recognize there are other "perspectives" from which reality is viewed so much so that we literally believe what we are seeing. Objectivity destroys subjectivity and renders it meaningless.
For example: If a person, or rather, a being that is so said to be "conscious" should recognize the concept of a pen it should be said that 1. a pen is by definition unknowable, rather a probable account of the reality anticipated and understood by what a pen is/can potentially be by the entity that so coined the term. 2. a pen needn't reflect the actual reality of the pen simply because the reality is knowable, hence to serve its purpose, that is the account of reality that is the definition, it must justifiably account for a sufficient amount of the recognizable traits in what would be considered to be a pen in the first occurrence.
Reality concerning the pen usually happens in this manner. The thing that so scribes and carries the characteristics of what is a pen is labeled a ''pen''. The reality is that there is much more to the pen that we don't yet realize and will never actually be capable of understanding. The pen exists in reality as an unknowable truth yet we aim to describe it as best as we can in our limited conceptualizations. Furthermore, each person views, tastes, touches, etc. and understands the pen independently. However, independence isn't sufficient for multiple accounts of the reality of the pen. The pen still is based in reality and it shall ALWAYS be viewed through a skewed glass.
We can never be certain what a "pen" actually is nor can we be realize what other people actually perceive to be a "pen". Yet, we can construct a model of a pen based on probability which suggests that a "pen" is likely this or that such that we agree on certain qualifications and expectations of what it means to be a "pen". This model, which is a functional model, allows people a "good enough" interpretation of what a "pen" is to follow concepts that include the pen as a property of reality. "Good enough" is a bar that is adjustable and will rise and fall with the progression of humanity. Our conceptualization of the "pen" will be adjusted according to what we come to understand about reality. Our entire understanding of the pen is provisional.
Eventually, we will minimize the uncertainty that surrounds the nature of things, that is, we will gain a better understanding of what a "pen" is. So long as these processes are based in an objective universe then they can by implication be understood according to the laws associated with science. Basically, what is subjective to you is really a lost thought brought into the center of your understanding. This "lost thought" can eventually be reclaimed by outside interpretations and logged in scientific inquiry. It is possible to understand at a fundamental level what you experience to a degree according to science such that subjectivity is rendered meaningless.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Paradox and Perfection
Paradoxes are problematic logical phenomena. For me they seem to signal a flaw in conceptualizing something. Hence, they beg to be solved. I think people intuitively view paradoxes as problematic. However things may seem, though, I'm not convinced paradoxes are necessarily a bad sign. Some how, I don't remember what led me to the subject, but I was thinking about the development of complex organisms. The issue I was rolling over in my mind was the idea that evolution leads to some species that are much better adapted to their environment than their predecessors. This isn't all evolution is, I realize, but a particular consequence of the evolutionary process in that given enough time complexity in species builds upon itself.
The problem is that evolution can accidentally be interpreted as a process bound for perfection. I think this very problem is another part of the intuitive misconception, however. The reason that evolution never aims for perfection is because evolution isn't a conscious entity It is merely a name given to a process conceptualized by organisms who suspect to have derived from the very process. Furthermore, and vital to understanding all life is that perfection isn't necessary. All that is necessary is "good enough". An organism doesn't need to function perfectly within it's environment to flourish, it very simply needs to function at a sufficient level that is conducive to its reproduction in the environment in which it inhabits.
The reason that an organism, a being so said to be "alive", only needs to be good enough means that paradoxes can arise within the system. Even complex organisms, the organisms that have developed through a long chain of evolutionary processes can inherit and even develop paradoxes within their existence. In fact, I would argue strongly that all life, in any case so based upon the idea of evolution, would ALWAYS contain paradoxes in accordance to its existence. Human beings are an obvious example, and actually the point of this discussion.
Human beings, I think, are rather arrogant by nature. We tend to think we are the cream of the evolutionary crop, that we are perhaps the pinnacle of evolutionary processes. Though we are members of the animal kingdom, according to very well developed and highly scrutinized models of biology, we tend to view ourselves as separate from other animals. We really are the most complex organisms that we yet know of, even as far as we know about the universe (which is actually immeasurably small). So, who's left to judge our arrogance but our own consciences? Still, to say that someone was "treated like an animal" is to say that someone was treated very poorly. To say that someone's behavior is "animalistic" is to say that someone is behaving very terribly - unhumanly. Yet we cannot escape the fact that we are animals and that we are not perfect individually nor are we perfect as a species, we simply got lucky in the evolutionary lottery and ended up as a dominant species on planet Earth.
So that we are imperfect inhabitants of the universe we live within the realm of paradoxes. I'm sure there are many many paradoxes in human life and there is still the potential for more to develop, however, some that have become evident to me, which serve as examples to my post, can be listed as follows: the futility of life, social individuals, justice/fairness, and consciousness.
The problem is that evolution can accidentally be interpreted as a process bound for perfection. I think this very problem is another part of the intuitive misconception, however. The reason that evolution never aims for perfection is because evolution isn't a conscious entity It is merely a name given to a process conceptualized by organisms who suspect to have derived from the very process. Furthermore, and vital to understanding all life is that perfection isn't necessary. All that is necessary is "good enough". An organism doesn't need to function perfectly within it's environment to flourish, it very simply needs to function at a sufficient level that is conducive to its reproduction in the environment in which it inhabits.
The reason that an organism, a being so said to be "alive", only needs to be good enough means that paradoxes can arise within the system. Even complex organisms, the organisms that have developed through a long chain of evolutionary processes can inherit and even develop paradoxes within their existence. In fact, I would argue strongly that all life, in any case so based upon the idea of evolution, would ALWAYS contain paradoxes in accordance to its existence. Human beings are an obvious example, and actually the point of this discussion.
Human beings, I think, are rather arrogant by nature. We tend to think we are the cream of the evolutionary crop, that we are perhaps the pinnacle of evolutionary processes. Though we are members of the animal kingdom, according to very well developed and highly scrutinized models of biology, we tend to view ourselves as separate from other animals. We really are the most complex organisms that we yet know of, even as far as we know about the universe (which is actually immeasurably small). So, who's left to judge our arrogance but our own consciences? Still, to say that someone was "treated like an animal" is to say that someone was treated very poorly. To say that someone's behavior is "animalistic" is to say that someone is behaving very terribly - unhumanly. Yet we cannot escape the fact that we are animals and that we are not perfect individually nor are we perfect as a species, we simply got lucky in the evolutionary lottery and ended up as a dominant species on planet Earth.
So that we are imperfect inhabitants of the universe we live within the realm of paradoxes. I'm sure there are many many paradoxes in human life and there is still the potential for more to develop, however, some that have become evident to me, which serve as examples to my post, can be listed as follows: the futility of life, social individuals, justice/fairness, and consciousness.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ultimation
There must be some foundation from which to realize some form of knowledge. Some base from which we can build upon, yet the truth or realization of reality seems to elude us. Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope, a ray of light that transgresses the clouds. As all doubt collects in the skeptics bowl is there not some function that is pure and evident, even to the skeptic? Perhaps it is that at the most simplistic level we could assert with true, unquestionable certainty that, at the very least, something if anything at all, exists despite the conception of "nothing". At the very least something, whatever it is, exists! To provide "nothing" even with a name contradicts itself. So, now we are at least, at the very minimum, left with the fact that something exists. All possible conception from which this reality, as it can in any way be conceived, inherently implies that something, rather than a contradictory nothing, exists.
Everything else that may build upon that "something" that exists is a necessary probability that actually diminishes as it attempts to describe reality. We start with something (100%) and work our way out (99.999999999 - to the infinite) according to the available evidence we have in support of something to say that it actually "corresponds to reality".
Since certainty exists as allusive, in all specifics, we should persuade ourselves into accepting that a true understanding of reality is not possible, but also not necessary. We don't need absolute certainty, we merely need "good enough". That is, "reality is perfection" and that we are each evolved with a separate level of understanding about the way reality actually is. We shall never comprehend reality, merely a progressive and reasonable account of reality. We are merely adding upon the ".9s".
Everything else that may build upon that "something" that exists is a necessary probability that actually diminishes as it attempts to describe reality. We start with something (100%) and work our way out (99.999999999 - to the infinite) according to the available evidence we have in support of something to say that it actually "corresponds to reality".
Since certainty exists as allusive, in all specifics, we should persuade ourselves into accepting that a true understanding of reality is not possible, but also not necessary. We don't need absolute certainty, we merely need "good enough". That is, "reality is perfection" and that we are each evolved with a separate level of understanding about the way reality actually is. We shall never comprehend reality, merely a progressive and reasonable account of reality. We are merely adding upon the ".9s".
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Disposable Technology
We live in an age where technology advances so quickly that whatever makes it to market is already obsolete. I remember our first computer had a 1 gigabyte hard drive and ran on dial up that was so slow I swear to God that every time I logged in I went a few seconds backwards in time. It also cost about $4,000. In 15 years personal computers have changed tremendously. They are faster and more efficient but their progress isn't limited to a steady pattern of growth. Breakthroughs in computing technology have caused the level of growth in computers to be exponential. Computers are now found in many devices scattered through out your house and their applications seem limitless.
The only problem that I really have with the run away technological growth I've noticed is a practical one. The newest technological devices don't seem to last as long. The quality of the product ensures that the product will last only as long as it takes to get the newest model onto the market. It makes sense to market devices that only last a few years because the growth of the technology depends on the demand. Consumers can buy a computer, cell phone, music player, digital camera, etc. and enjoy it for only a short while because just as soon as you become familiar with the device it will be out dated and it will necessarily be in need of replacement. This necessity occurs in two ways. 1: You are compelled to update your current device because you feel you are lagging behind with the current culture; 2: your device fails and your are left to repurchase the device in it's latest form.
Outdated technology isn't worthless. It still has value so long as it works good enough for the lagger who still uses it. I know that my manual razor had a predecessor that had two blades and one before that which had just the one. It didn't take too long for someone to develop a new razor that has four blades so now my current razor is obsolete. It won't be long before this next one is obsolete either. The next one, I'm sure, will have 5 blades, and once they have put on as many blades as is possible to put on a razor they will make one that tells time or one that reminds you when you need to shave by sending you a text message on your cell phone. I still prefer it if I want a smoother shave because an electric razor, no matter how expensive or "good" it supposedly is, it can never give you as close a shave. The point hidden in all this rambling is that the damn thing still works.
It's actually amazing to think of the ways people have improved such simple technologies. Another example is the toothbrush. What was once a stick with bristles on one end now comes in many different styles ranging from stiffness of bristles, to flexible heads, to vibrating kinds, to ones with tongue cleaners.
Sadly, I cannot say that technology is more or less reliable than it was at any other time because I honestly don't know the statistics. However, the frustration in dealing with expensive devices that do not last long has peeked my suspicion and I can't help but recall the 40 year old microwave sitting in the kitchen still being used as if to spite the Ipod, personal computer, and digital camera I had that each lasted less than 2 years. Each examples of the failure I have recently and irritatingly experienced in newer technology. I know of many people with strangely old microwaves. Maybe it is just that microwave technology is a more reliable technology. There in lies the bias of my reasoning, perhaps.
In any case the demand for disposable technology is evident, whether it is the cause of poor quality products or not. People go through cell phones like babies go through diapers. If people want it then the market will supply it; I just wish that I could feel more confidence in investing a decent amount of my money into some new device without having to worry about how soon it is likely to fail on me. It seems the only glimmer of hope is that people will only be able to accept a lifestyle filled with disposable technologies so long as they do not become too unreasonable. For me that has already passed with so many devices, I'm merely waiting on the rest of the herd to get there.
The only problem that I really have with the run away technological growth I've noticed is a practical one. The newest technological devices don't seem to last as long. The quality of the product ensures that the product will last only as long as it takes to get the newest model onto the market. It makes sense to market devices that only last a few years because the growth of the technology depends on the demand. Consumers can buy a computer, cell phone, music player, digital camera, etc. and enjoy it for only a short while because just as soon as you become familiar with the device it will be out dated and it will necessarily be in need of replacement. This necessity occurs in two ways. 1: You are compelled to update your current device because you feel you are lagging behind with the current culture; 2: your device fails and your are left to repurchase the device in it's latest form.
Outdated technology isn't worthless. It still has value so long as it works good enough for the lagger who still uses it. I know that my manual razor had a predecessor that had two blades and one before that which had just the one. It didn't take too long for someone to develop a new razor that has four blades so now my current razor is obsolete. It won't be long before this next one is obsolete either. The next one, I'm sure, will have 5 blades, and once they have put on as many blades as is possible to put on a razor they will make one that tells time or one that reminds you when you need to shave by sending you a text message on your cell phone. I still prefer it if I want a smoother shave because an electric razor, no matter how expensive or "good" it supposedly is, it can never give you as close a shave. The point hidden in all this rambling is that the damn thing still works.
It's actually amazing to think of the ways people have improved such simple technologies. Another example is the toothbrush. What was once a stick with bristles on one end now comes in many different styles ranging from stiffness of bristles, to flexible heads, to vibrating kinds, to ones with tongue cleaners.
Sadly, I cannot say that technology is more or less reliable than it was at any other time because I honestly don't know the statistics. However, the frustration in dealing with expensive devices that do not last long has peeked my suspicion and I can't help but recall the 40 year old microwave sitting in the kitchen still being used as if to spite the Ipod, personal computer, and digital camera I had that each lasted less than 2 years. Each examples of the failure I have recently and irritatingly experienced in newer technology. I know of many people with strangely old microwaves. Maybe it is just that microwave technology is a more reliable technology. There in lies the bias of my reasoning, perhaps.
In any case the demand for disposable technology is evident, whether it is the cause of poor quality products or not. People go through cell phones like babies go through diapers. If people want it then the market will supply it; I just wish that I could feel more confidence in investing a decent amount of my money into some new device without having to worry about how soon it is likely to fail on me. It seems the only glimmer of hope is that people will only be able to accept a lifestyle filled with disposable technologies so long as they do not become too unreasonable. For me that has already passed with so many devices, I'm merely waiting on the rest of the herd to get there.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Originality
How original do you really think you are? The world is populated by more than 6.5 billion people today. In the history of humanity there has been countless more. We are 99% similar to each human being we encounter on the streets, indeed, we are 99% similar to every human being that is alive today and even more similar to our immediate relatives. As far as genetics go it may be impossible to get any closer to "exactness" than an identical twin. Though they may be "genetically identical" they still retain individuality in that their experiences alter their values and perceptions on which they operate. It seems almost paradoxical that human beings feel compelled to assert a certain amount of uniqueness yet at the same time desire similarities enough to form groups.
Originality is definitely seen as a virtue to an extent. The kind of originality that leads to deviant behaviors such as you'll find in murderers, rascals, and the like are obviously shunned by most. Like everything the human mind contemplates originality is based on some value scale. Robert Jarvik, the guy that created the artificial heart, certainly receives praise for his originality in developing new technologies that help people who once had no hope. Of course what would you expect from someone married to the supposed smartest woman in the world.
There comes a problem with originality and discovery. So many people inhabiting this world today now have access to a wealth of knowledge that is readily available at the click of a mouse. While progress continues to be made on the human front less people in the world have to concern themselves about mere survival which allows more people to kick back, relax, and contemplate things. These curious pursuits lead to all sorts of great and obscure ideas. The eventual consequence of 6.5 billion people who are 99% similar and retain the ability to simply sit around thinking about things as they choose has led to a lot of similar thought.
Though we continue to think that we are each very unique, often it is instilled in us as children, it still stands to reason that we are overwhelmingly more similar than we are different. The implication in that is that if the first person to discover the wheel hadn't been whoever it was then it surely would have been discovered by someone else. The problem of originality then isn't merely having "original" ideas but being the first to broadcast them. If you don't make the discovery someone else eventually will! I heard that Alexander Graham Bell, the dude that is credited with inventing the telephone, registered his patent on the telephone mere minutes before someone else, who had supposedly developed a "better" version, attempted to register a patent for it. How true the story is I don't know but it would serve it's purpose even as an allegory.
I can't imagine there are many people, at least in the developed world, who haven't stumbled upon a situation where they believed they had discovered something original only to find that someone else had breakfasted or even marketed the discovery before they had. I remember this commercial for a patenting company that shows a rather irritated man struggling with the thought of someone else cashing in on "his idea". The poor man is left litost grumbling "I shoulda gotta patent". In my personal experience I can recall stumbling across a book who's author seemed to pull the thoughts I had directly from my brain. I was awed to find ideas I thought were greatly original compiled in a book (often using the same words I would have used) written by a man whom I had previously never heard of and who could have passed as an intellectual twin. Though I felt I lost some of my originality I must admit there comes a certain satisfaction in the validation of ideas in this manner. Even the creators of South Park, the cartoon that has parodied nearly everything in contemporary history, reveal the reality of originality in the cartoon business by declaring that "The Simpsons" have already done it in one of their sketches.
Another problem that is a consequence of like minded selfish creatures spending time discovering things is plaigerism. Knowingly copying someone else's core ideas and passing them off as your own is more or less plaigerism. Yet how can one tell if the intent was there. In law all that separates a criminal from a fool is intent. Plaigerism is a big deal to a lot of people and researchers have spent time developing software to root out plaigerism. See link below:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41458/title/Study_finds_lots_of_apparent_plagiarism
But how can one be truely certain that one idea has not simply been copied from another. Comedians get into battle over stolen material all the time.
Carlos Mencia is called out by Joe Rogan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M42BflUZry8
Someone claims that Dane Cook stole Demetri Martin's joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCiyR4-YLc
With so many comedians it is certain that they will eventually stuble upon similar lines of comedy. It is a fact of our human nature and shared experiences. One can never be sure of true plaigerism (unless it is confessed by the defendant). The only test would be to analyse the liklihood of each case, thereby developing some rough idea of the probability the case wasn't simply coincidence. Complexity of ideas is key.
Developing originality simply has to do with the amount of complexity inherent in an idea. The more complex a discovery is generally the less people will stumble upon the idea as soon. Statistically, if this universe we inhabit goes on forever and human beings are able to continue as a species all discoveries that can be made will be made. A person who is looking to develop their originality should invest some time into discoveries that are more complex in nature. Einstein, a symbol of superior intellect, developed original theories in physics, most notably his theory of "general relativity" yet it is certain that given enough time some other physicist/mathematician would have come along and made the discovery had he not.
Originality is definitely seen as a virtue to an extent. The kind of originality that leads to deviant behaviors such as you'll find in murderers, rascals, and the like are obviously shunned by most. Like everything the human mind contemplates originality is based on some value scale. Robert Jarvik, the guy that created the artificial heart, certainly receives praise for his originality in developing new technologies that help people who once had no hope. Of course what would you expect from someone married to the supposed smartest woman in the world.
There comes a problem with originality and discovery. So many people inhabiting this world today now have access to a wealth of knowledge that is readily available at the click of a mouse. While progress continues to be made on the human front less people in the world have to concern themselves about mere survival which allows more people to kick back, relax, and contemplate things. These curious pursuits lead to all sorts of great and obscure ideas. The eventual consequence of 6.5 billion people who are 99% similar and retain the ability to simply sit around thinking about things as they choose has led to a lot of similar thought.
Though we continue to think that we are each very unique, often it is instilled in us as children, it still stands to reason that we are overwhelmingly more similar than we are different. The implication in that is that if the first person to discover the wheel hadn't been whoever it was then it surely would have been discovered by someone else. The problem of originality then isn't merely having "original" ideas but being the first to broadcast them. If you don't make the discovery someone else eventually will! I heard that Alexander Graham Bell, the dude that is credited with inventing the telephone, registered his patent on the telephone mere minutes before someone else, who had supposedly developed a "better" version, attempted to register a patent for it. How true the story is I don't know but it would serve it's purpose even as an allegory.
I can't imagine there are many people, at least in the developed world, who haven't stumbled upon a situation where they believed they had discovered something original only to find that someone else had breakfasted or even marketed the discovery before they had. I remember this commercial for a patenting company that shows a rather irritated man struggling with the thought of someone else cashing in on "his idea". The poor man is left litost grumbling "I shoulda gotta patent". In my personal experience I can recall stumbling across a book who's author seemed to pull the thoughts I had directly from my brain. I was awed to find ideas I thought were greatly original compiled in a book (often using the same words I would have used) written by a man whom I had previously never heard of and who could have passed as an intellectual twin. Though I felt I lost some of my originality I must admit there comes a certain satisfaction in the validation of ideas in this manner. Even the creators of South Park, the cartoon that has parodied nearly everything in contemporary history, reveal the reality of originality in the cartoon business by declaring that "The Simpsons" have already done it in one of their sketches.
Another problem that is a consequence of like minded selfish creatures spending time discovering things is plaigerism. Knowingly copying someone else's core ideas and passing them off as your own is more or less plaigerism. Yet how can one tell if the intent was there. In law all that separates a criminal from a fool is intent. Plaigerism is a big deal to a lot of people and researchers have spent time developing software to root out plaigerism. See link below:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41458/title/Study_finds_lots_of_apparent_plagiarism
But how can one be truely certain that one idea has not simply been copied from another. Comedians get into battle over stolen material all the time.
Carlos Mencia is called out by Joe Rogan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M42BflUZry8
Someone claims that Dane Cook stole Demetri Martin's joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCiyR4-YLc
With so many comedians it is certain that they will eventually stuble upon similar lines of comedy. It is a fact of our human nature and shared experiences. One can never be sure of true plaigerism (unless it is confessed by the defendant). The only test would be to analyse the liklihood of each case, thereby developing some rough idea of the probability the case wasn't simply coincidence. Complexity of ideas is key.
Developing originality simply has to do with the amount of complexity inherent in an idea. The more complex a discovery is generally the less people will stumble upon the idea as soon. Statistically, if this universe we inhabit goes on forever and human beings are able to continue as a species all discoveries that can be made will be made. A person who is looking to develop their originality should invest some time into discoveries that are more complex in nature. Einstein, a symbol of superior intellect, developed original theories in physics, most notably his theory of "general relativity" yet it is certain that given enough time some other physicist/mathematician would have come along and made the discovery had he not.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Utilitarian Political Perfection
I feel like I am someone who is a member of a minority group among academics and scholars for my dissent on utilitarianism. It seems that most people follow at least a minimal level of utilitarianism in life, striving to maintain more good for more people in most circumstance and it seems to logically follow, at least at first glace. To merely accept that it is good advice to follow the majority belief is fallacious reasoning because sometimes the majority of people get it wrong. I do however, take from a strong majority belief caution in pursing my own attempt to find truth in a matter that has caused so many minds to polarize on one side of an issue. My argument, like so many debates in philosophy, is driven by a hypothetical scenario.
A perfect government: Government from a utilitarian perspective means that so long as the government is benefiting more people than it is harming then it is not merely preferable to institute utilitarian policies, rather it is the aim and such is necessary for the maintenance of the greater good. This form of government may follow whatever means necessary to reach those ends (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) regardless of the pain, misery, destruction, harm, etc. it does to others, no matter how egregious, ruthless, despicable, abominable, disgusting, etc. The hypothetical that comes to mind when I think of a perfect government under a utilitarian framework goes as follows. The masses elect their officials who represent them in both the house and the senate and those officials create laws and act as the collective oversight of all government actions. The president in this hypothetical is also elected by the members of congress, just like the U.S. government does today only there is no popular election by the masses. The president, the one who has to make all the tough choices and must retain the power of making split second decisions, is chosen solely by our elected representatives and is obligated to serve. They may use whatever criteria they desire for determining who the best potential candidate will be but after one is decided upon that person is made commander in chief regardless of their willingness to accept the position or not.
The person will have to be someone that has an immense stake in life, that is, they must have a lot to lose. Having family and friends that someone is extremely attached to emotionally is regarded as a positive to any official evaluating potential candidates. Any other items the person has in life that they are strongly attached to is also a plus because they can be exploited. Having the right "mindset" is also possible criteria. The mindset includes behavioral patterns that suggest the candidate has good reasoning abilities, functions normally, and any other psychological qualities that make the candidate best fit for the position. After the person has been selected they shall be taken away from all that they cherish in life. The government will then instruct the new commander in chief that everyone that he loves is expendable to their cause because they are the assurance the government has on the decision making power of the person. The president is now given access to all pertinent resources that is necessary to making decisions but is restricted in his abilities so far as he may seek "selfish" ends. Those selfish ends include attempting to save the persons he loves from any amount of harm that could befall them.
To establish the credibility in their threats the government threaten to cause or actually cause massive amounts of harm to those people or things that the president most deeply cares for such that the stress of seeing one's most cherished things in life being harmed will cause the president to function in a manner that is most conducive to making the best decisions. In this manner the president is not held back by pride or other decision impairing issues. They may also wish to threaten massive amounts of harm to the president himself. Nothing is off the table so long as it means the president will maintain the best effort he/she has in making decisions that benefit the country and the majority of its citizens. The ends in this scenario justify the means so even a constitution and laws can be thrown out the window if the security of the majority is at stake.
This scenario is very unlikely to ever happen so it's possibility is irrelevant. The hypothetical is meant to highlight the absurdity inherent in utilitarian ideals by isolating the important concepts so they can be analyzed in depth. If utilitarianism is accepted then it follows that all the actions taken by the government in this scenario are justified so long as they benefit the majority. This is the problem I have with utilitarian ethics. There is a difference between causing harm to another and failing to make them better off. We always have the option of helping others on our own accord. It is more than an equation of numbers and I think the utilitarians fail to see this.
For another extremely interesting ethical dilemma that does well to hash out utilitarian tendencies click the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
A perfect government: Government from a utilitarian perspective means that so long as the government is benefiting more people than it is harming then it is not merely preferable to institute utilitarian policies, rather it is the aim and such is necessary for the maintenance of the greater good. This form of government may follow whatever means necessary to reach those ends (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) regardless of the pain, misery, destruction, harm, etc. it does to others, no matter how egregious, ruthless, despicable, abominable, disgusting, etc. The hypothetical that comes to mind when I think of a perfect government under a utilitarian framework goes as follows. The masses elect their officials who represent them in both the house and the senate and those officials create laws and act as the collective oversight of all government actions. The president in this hypothetical is also elected by the members of congress, just like the U.S. government does today only there is no popular election by the masses. The president, the one who has to make all the tough choices and must retain the power of making split second decisions, is chosen solely by our elected representatives and is obligated to serve. They may use whatever criteria they desire for determining who the best potential candidate will be but after one is decided upon that person is made commander in chief regardless of their willingness to accept the position or not.
The person will have to be someone that has an immense stake in life, that is, they must have a lot to lose. Having family and friends that someone is extremely attached to emotionally is regarded as a positive to any official evaluating potential candidates. Any other items the person has in life that they are strongly attached to is also a plus because they can be exploited. Having the right "mindset" is also possible criteria. The mindset includes behavioral patterns that suggest the candidate has good reasoning abilities, functions normally, and any other psychological qualities that make the candidate best fit for the position. After the person has been selected they shall be taken away from all that they cherish in life. The government will then instruct the new commander in chief that everyone that he loves is expendable to their cause because they are the assurance the government has on the decision making power of the person. The president is now given access to all pertinent resources that is necessary to making decisions but is restricted in his abilities so far as he may seek "selfish" ends. Those selfish ends include attempting to save the persons he loves from any amount of harm that could befall them.
To establish the credibility in their threats the government threaten to cause or actually cause massive amounts of harm to those people or things that the president most deeply cares for such that the stress of seeing one's most cherished things in life being harmed will cause the president to function in a manner that is most conducive to making the best decisions. In this manner the president is not held back by pride or other decision impairing issues. They may also wish to threaten massive amounts of harm to the president himself. Nothing is off the table so long as it means the president will maintain the best effort he/she has in making decisions that benefit the country and the majority of its citizens. The ends in this scenario justify the means so even a constitution and laws can be thrown out the window if the security of the majority is at stake.
This scenario is very unlikely to ever happen so it's possibility is irrelevant. The hypothetical is meant to highlight the absurdity inherent in utilitarian ideals by isolating the important concepts so they can be analyzed in depth. If utilitarianism is accepted then it follows that all the actions taken by the government in this scenario are justified so long as they benefit the majority. This is the problem I have with utilitarian ethics. There is a difference between causing harm to another and failing to make them better off. We always have the option of helping others on our own accord. It is more than an equation of numbers and I think the utilitarians fail to see this.
For another extremely interesting ethical dilemma that does well to hash out utilitarian tendencies click the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Despite Recession, Things Aren't That Bad
I think that most people are tuning into the news these days and seeing too much negativity directed at the economy. Of course the news media tends to focus on stories that are stressful to consumers but people need to remember to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Everyone is hearing terms like "crisis" and "recession" and comparisons to The Great Depression everywhere in the news media. All this negativity is making its way into social circles at work and at home with people wondering "when is America going to crash?"
The economic problem looks so devastatingly terrible for Americans because that is what people are focused on at this moment. U.S. operations in Iraq are going swimmingly so there isn't much of a story there and it is only natural that we shift our attention to the next issue of concern. But I have to say, although it is an issue of concern, things really aren't that bad. Americans are still on the top, globally speaking and on the whole. While children are still starving in Africa fat Americans are still able to visit their favorite fast food restaurants and gorge their gullets...and at a cheaper price too! With this whole economic crisis going on consumers are more reluctant to spend money and many businesses are offering super deals from everything from food to airfare. I'm going on vacation to China in May and I purchased round trip tickets to fly there for under $800. That's a steal, and with the U.S. dollar still outmatching the ever growing Chinese yuan 6.82 - 1 I expect a great trip at a very reasonable price.
Still the unemployment rate is up and is higher than it has been since the 1980s. More people in the U.S. are seeking aid from the government and charities to keep themselves and their families afloat. Businesses are going bankrupt and many businesses are in the red leaving many entrepreneurs uncertain about their futures. People are losing their homes because they cannot afford them any longer, and the list goes on.
Though the unemployment rate is up in the U.S. it is still lower than that of some European countries. The very countries which maintain a comparable standard of living to the U.S.'s are also watching the U.S. dollar gain over their Euro. Big businesses like AIG, Circuit City, and the American auto industry are barely hanging on having to cut costs by laying off employees, closing businesses, limiting resources, issuing pay cuts, and borrowing from the federal government. Yet, most businesses are doing okay and many are actually doing quite well. Discount stores like Wal-Mart along with food industry companies are some of the companies doing well in this economy.
What's happened? People are wasting less because they are feeling pinched. Businesses are offering great deals to consumers still buying. And most people, MOST people in America, are doing fine. Though people have lost their jobs or their homes because of hard economic times and are barely eking out an existence people forget that even in times of great prosperity there will still be people who lose their homes or get laid off. So, whether it happens in a recession or not it still sucks for those affected. Americans still have it great. We can still drive our huge cars, eat out at restaurants - though "we've had to cut back to only once a month", and spend more time at home enjoying the simple pleasures in life like reading or spending more time with the family.
No one is starving in the U.S. No one is tossed out of house an office without some place to turn. The only problem is that our expectations are much higher than the rest of the world's population. We expect more. We are used to living such lavish lifestyles and when we have to give a bit of it up it breaks our corroded little hearts. Being born an American today is like hitting the lottery of existence in this world. Just be happy that you weren't born in Nigeria, The Democratic Rep. of The Congo, N. Korea, the slums of India, or any other struggling country or society.
The economic problem looks so devastatingly terrible for Americans because that is what people are focused on at this moment. U.S. operations in Iraq are going swimmingly so there isn't much of a story there and it is only natural that we shift our attention to the next issue of concern. But I have to say, although it is an issue of concern, things really aren't that bad. Americans are still on the top, globally speaking and on the whole. While children are still starving in Africa fat Americans are still able to visit their favorite fast food restaurants and gorge their gullets...and at a cheaper price too! With this whole economic crisis going on consumers are more reluctant to spend money and many businesses are offering super deals from everything from food to airfare. I'm going on vacation to China in May and I purchased round trip tickets to fly there for under $800. That's a steal, and with the U.S. dollar still outmatching the ever growing Chinese yuan 6.82 - 1 I expect a great trip at a very reasonable price.
Still the unemployment rate is up and is higher than it has been since the 1980s. More people in the U.S. are seeking aid from the government and charities to keep themselves and their families afloat. Businesses are going bankrupt and many businesses are in the red leaving many entrepreneurs uncertain about their futures. People are losing their homes because they cannot afford them any longer, and the list goes on.
Though the unemployment rate is up in the U.S. it is still lower than that of some European countries. The very countries which maintain a comparable standard of living to the U.S.'s are also watching the U.S. dollar gain over their Euro. Big businesses like AIG, Circuit City, and the American auto industry are barely hanging on having to cut costs by laying off employees, closing businesses, limiting resources, issuing pay cuts, and borrowing from the federal government. Yet, most businesses are doing okay and many are actually doing quite well. Discount stores like Wal-Mart along with food industry companies are some of the companies doing well in this economy.
What's happened? People are wasting less because they are feeling pinched. Businesses are offering great deals to consumers still buying. And most people, MOST people in America, are doing fine. Though people have lost their jobs or their homes because of hard economic times and are barely eking out an existence people forget that even in times of great prosperity there will still be people who lose their homes or get laid off. So, whether it happens in a recession or not it still sucks for those affected. Americans still have it great. We can still drive our huge cars, eat out at restaurants - though "we've had to cut back to only once a month", and spend more time at home enjoying the simple pleasures in life like reading or spending more time with the family.
No one is starving in the U.S. No one is tossed out of house an office without some place to turn. The only problem is that our expectations are much higher than the rest of the world's population. We expect more. We are used to living such lavish lifestyles and when we have to give a bit of it up it breaks our corroded little hearts. Being born an American today is like hitting the lottery of existence in this world. Just be happy that you weren't born in Nigeria, The Democratic Rep. of The Congo, N. Korea, the slums of India, or any other struggling country or society.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Thought on Marriage; Further Thoughts on Relationships
Marriage has several different claims of definition and depending on the culture it involves different requirements. Typically, it is the recognition of a contract by a group or larger society of beings (often a governmental entity is involved) in which two or more persons agree (or not) to remain obligated to one another for the purposes of love and love making. Often it involves procreation, but to many a man's relief such has failed to become a reality.
Relationships: During break-ups I have often heard a proclamation that follows some where along the lines of "well, I guess I didn't know who you really were." I think most people can relate to a situation in which they have heard some one voice their reasons in such a way. However, it is my intention to decode and dismiss such lines of reasoning because they are fallacious.
When two people meet, they match up, and they fall in love they develop certain expectations of one another based on their interpretations of past experiences they have had with each other. That isn't the end of the story though. Those expectations people develop for one another are based on the expectations each person involved has developed through out their lives experiencing the world and drawing conclusions based upon patterns they have perceived, that is, how their mind interprets reality. Good relationships are like a climax of all the most important expectations a person has for what they believe will make them happy.
Most relationships don't work. They don't work for several reasons. People aren't born unto this world equipped with all the knowledge that is conducive to living a happy existence. Most relationships don't work out because people are getting together at developmental stages in their lives in which they are often very fickle. Each person that exists is constantly taking in new information based on experiences they have in the world and they use the information to develop a logical construction of what reality is, but this construction is always provisional because the information that drives people to develop their personal theories about how reality actually is relies on input that is constantly being updated. People change.
Every person should be viewed as a being that develops ideas based on a provisional understanding of reality, that is, a being that operates on ideas which can change according to the discovery of elements fundamental to their understanding. This means that every person is a person in progress (whether you think they fit the bill or not) they are constantly experiencing the world and ADJUSTING their developmental frameworks about what they think is the best road to happiness.
So, now that any person should utter any phrase that reasons along the lines that "a person is what any other person expects" should ring fallacious. All we have are our experiences to use to develop our ideas about what we think reality is. We use these concepts to develop our understanding of people and we consequently develop expectations based on those ideas. Every social entity should realize that every being is influenced by their environment such that WHEN their environment changes significantly a significant change in the expectation of that person should logically follow.
Formula: The following is a formula I will use to represent the fundamental idea I am attempting to convey...
You meet Dave. You and Dave develop a relationship. That relationship grows. While you remain mostly the same Dave's circumstances change significantly. He develops expectations based on his new circumstances. Those circumstances may or may not be conducive to the health of you relations with Dave and consequently your expectations of happiness WITH Dave. Dave changes to adapt to his new environment; you either adapt to that change by adjusting your expectations of Dave or you do not. If you do not you and Dave will be in misalignment and the relationship you share will suffer.
People are afraid of the unknown sometimes because they don't know what to expect and part of having a healthy relationship with someone depends on being able to expect certain things from people. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that push them away from certain relationships. Think all the way back to your childhood. Your emotional attachments to others are derived from expectations you have placed on others and their attachments are based on their expectations of you. To think of others as unchanging is fallacious such that saying "I guess he/she wasn't who I thought he/she was" is wrong. Everyone changes. Finding someone whose change is conducive to your own gets harder as more time passes.
Relationships: During break-ups I have often heard a proclamation that follows some where along the lines of "well, I guess I didn't know who you really were." I think most people can relate to a situation in which they have heard some one voice their reasons in such a way. However, it is my intention to decode and dismiss such lines of reasoning because they are fallacious.
When two people meet, they match up, and they fall in love they develop certain expectations of one another based on their interpretations of past experiences they have had with each other. That isn't the end of the story though. Those expectations people develop for one another are based on the expectations each person involved has developed through out their lives experiencing the world and drawing conclusions based upon patterns they have perceived, that is, how their mind interprets reality. Good relationships are like a climax of all the most important expectations a person has for what they believe will make them happy.
Most relationships don't work. They don't work for several reasons. People aren't born unto this world equipped with all the knowledge that is conducive to living a happy existence. Most relationships don't work out because people are getting together at developmental stages in their lives in which they are often very fickle. Each person that exists is constantly taking in new information based on experiences they have in the world and they use the information to develop a logical construction of what reality is, but this construction is always provisional because the information that drives people to develop their personal theories about how reality actually is relies on input that is constantly being updated. People change.
Every person should be viewed as a being that develops ideas based on a provisional understanding of reality, that is, a being that operates on ideas which can change according to the discovery of elements fundamental to their understanding. This means that every person is a person in progress (whether you think they fit the bill or not) they are constantly experiencing the world and ADJUSTING their developmental frameworks about what they think is the best road to happiness.
So, now that any person should utter any phrase that reasons along the lines that "a person is what any other person expects" should ring fallacious. All we have are our experiences to use to develop our ideas about what we think reality is. We use these concepts to develop our understanding of people and we consequently develop expectations based on those ideas. Every social entity should realize that every being is influenced by their environment such that WHEN their environment changes significantly a significant change in the expectation of that person should logically follow.
Formula: The following is a formula I will use to represent the fundamental idea I am attempting to convey...
You meet Dave. You and Dave develop a relationship. That relationship grows. While you remain mostly the same Dave's circumstances change significantly. He develops expectations based on his new circumstances. Those circumstances may or may not be conducive to the health of you relations with Dave and consequently your expectations of happiness WITH Dave. Dave changes to adapt to his new environment; you either adapt to that change by adjusting your expectations of Dave or you do not. If you do not you and Dave will be in misalignment and the relationship you share will suffer.
People are afraid of the unknown sometimes because they don't know what to expect and part of having a healthy relationship with someone depends on being able to expect certain things from people. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that push them away from certain relationships. Think all the way back to your childhood. Your emotional attachments to others are derived from expectations you have placed on others and their attachments are based on their expectations of you. To think of others as unchanging is fallacious such that saying "I guess he/she wasn't who I thought he/she was" is wrong. Everyone changes. Finding someone whose change is conducive to your own gets harder as more time passes.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Time
Time is motion. Time is the movement of each elemental unit of matter. It is not possible to not have motion (absolute zero) so there is no event at which it can be said there is no time. This means that motion is infinite from all instances, that is, time doesn't have a beginning nor does it have an end.
Time at any point is the history of collisions of matter from any and all points preceding it. Consequently, time is non-reversible. In order to go back in time all matter would have to reverse, but with no force capable of doing so means that revisiting past points in time are impossible. There can be no force capable of reversing all matter because that force would still involve matter that is composed of forward moving matter.
There is no choice, no free will, no other way things could have been. To say that things could have been any other way constitutes flawed reasoning. Since we know that the matter that composes all objects is the same as what makes up what we call life all known matter moves only as it can unimpeded by the illusion of free will. One that would question this should think about the reasons behind all actions. No human action is without a reason, except in matters of reflex, and any reflex is certainly determined. If it has a reason then it has a cause and is bound by such a relation to ad infinitum.
We all just watch the beauty of the motions playing out like a movie. There can be no other way, so that "reality is perfection". There is still meaning even in the illusory because the feelings are still genuine.
Time at any point is the history of collisions of matter from any and all points preceding it. Consequently, time is non-reversible. In order to go back in time all matter would have to reverse, but with no force capable of doing so means that revisiting past points in time are impossible. There can be no force capable of reversing all matter because that force would still involve matter that is composed of forward moving matter.
There is no choice, no free will, no other way things could have been. To say that things could have been any other way constitutes flawed reasoning. Since we know that the matter that composes all objects is the same as what makes up what we call life all known matter moves only as it can unimpeded by the illusion of free will. One that would question this should think about the reasons behind all actions. No human action is without a reason, except in matters of reflex, and any reflex is certainly determined. If it has a reason then it has a cause and is bound by such a relation to ad infinitum.
We all just watch the beauty of the motions playing out like a movie. There can be no other way, so that "reality is perfection". There is still meaning even in the illusory because the feelings are still genuine.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
My Response Concerning Origins and Reality.
Anonymous: "There has to be a cause, even if that cause is the equivalent of someone throwing a rock in a pond, causing waves to ripple."
Your entire argument is an "argument from ignorance fallacy". I think the problem is differentiating between "cause" and reality. The reality is that for either scenario to exist there had to be some essential component, that being a God or the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to bring about the reality we try to understand. Either way, by mere simplicity it seems like a leap of faith that a "supreme being" existed as compared to the mere necessary components having existed, always. It is either a superior being or the "necessary and sufficient" components that have ALWAYS existed.
Concerning quantum mechanics: scientists do not sufficiently understand quantum mechanics in order to conclude any theory as being law in quantum mechanics (as far as I know, they are all principles, if not mere speculations and unrestrained theories). It, therefore, seems likely to me that we do not fully understand quantum mechanics in order to derive some reasonably realistic conclusion concerning the subject.
Your entire argument is an "argument from ignorance fallacy". I think the problem is differentiating between "cause" and reality. The reality is that for either scenario to exist there had to be some essential component, that being a God or the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to bring about the reality we try to understand. Either way, by mere simplicity it seems like a leap of faith that a "supreme being" existed as compared to the mere necessary components having existed, always. It is either a superior being or the "necessary and sufficient" components that have ALWAYS existed.
Concerning quantum mechanics: scientists do not sufficiently understand quantum mechanics in order to conclude any theory as being law in quantum mechanics (as far as I know, they are all principles, if not mere speculations and unrestrained theories). It, therefore, seems likely to me that we do not fully understand quantum mechanics in order to derive some reasonably realistic conclusion concerning the subject.
Concerning Expectation and Happiness
Happiness is the goal for every action consciously taken by any human being. Happiness is the one thing we want merely for itself. Since life is to be experienced expectation based on our experiences plays a gigantic role in each person's actualization of happiness. Happiness is something like the satisfaction or contentment derived from the realization of certain expectations.
Our expectations can be charted in a hierarchical manner, that is, we have higher or greater expectations for some things so the value we place on them comes with a certain priority we ascribe to them. Though each person is composed differently and maintains a specialized sense of value priority human beings are genetically similar enough that reasonable conclusions can be deduced. A good model I have found is the "Hierarchy of Needs" presented by Maslow. If you are unfamiliar with it it can easily be researched via the sea of information you currently have at your fingertips, a.k.a. the internet. However, my focus isn't on the Heirarchy in general rather the personal conception of expectations as they are related to each person's happiness.
The proverbial saying "ignorance is bliss" maintains a certain element of truth. Though I think that bliss is the idea of a state of complete, constant, and unimpeded happiness; the idea of complete ignorance is something hard to observe and therefore hard to draw conclusions upon concerning the correlation between ignorance and bliss (total happiness in every respect). In any case the point is that ignorance does allow for a certain amount of contentment. If you don't know that there is something better out there you are not as stressed by the expectation that you may not come to realize it. From realization comes higher expectation.
Choice (as discussed by some academic I don't recall) becomes a problem for an individual who realizes opportunity or potential yet carries a personal expectation that is not conducive to a massive variety of choice. If expectations are too high then choice becomes stressful. Choice and expectation are intertwined because expectation is the model each person conceptualizes and choice remains the action or decision process we use for realizing our expectations. The reason stress is associated with choice in this way is because human beings make mistakes in their reasoning all the time and we often realize that the choices we made were not conducive to the expectations we held before the action was realized or before the decision was made.
Expectation is a personalized conception each person develops about what they think is conducive to their happiness. The process isn't flawless, as it is easy for every person to recall a moment where they thought they wanted something only to find out later they were wrong. All each person can do is make the best choices according to the available evidence they have in support of a particular choice.
Life is the pursuit of happiness and expectation is vital to realizing happiness. A particularly frustrating problem is the expectations we have for each other. Personal expectations NEVER match up completely so the mission is to always work to maintain a sufficient level of contentment between yourself and those whom you develop relationships with.
On a side note: You may be content in your ignorance of certain things, but that is only because you don't know what you are missing! In a constantly changing world expectations can expect to change and one should always be able to adjust their expectations to the discovery of new things.
Our expectations can be charted in a hierarchical manner, that is, we have higher or greater expectations for some things so the value we place on them comes with a certain priority we ascribe to them. Though each person is composed differently and maintains a specialized sense of value priority human beings are genetically similar enough that reasonable conclusions can be deduced. A good model I have found is the "Hierarchy of Needs" presented by Maslow. If you are unfamiliar with it it can easily be researched via the sea of information you currently have at your fingertips, a.k.a. the internet. However, my focus isn't on the Heirarchy in general rather the personal conception of expectations as they are related to each person's happiness.
The proverbial saying "ignorance is bliss" maintains a certain element of truth. Though I think that bliss is the idea of a state of complete, constant, and unimpeded happiness; the idea of complete ignorance is something hard to observe and therefore hard to draw conclusions upon concerning the correlation between ignorance and bliss (total happiness in every respect). In any case the point is that ignorance does allow for a certain amount of contentment. If you don't know that there is something better out there you are not as stressed by the expectation that you may not come to realize it. From realization comes higher expectation.
Choice (as discussed by some academic I don't recall) becomes a problem for an individual who realizes opportunity or potential yet carries a personal expectation that is not conducive to a massive variety of choice. If expectations are too high then choice becomes stressful. Choice and expectation are intertwined because expectation is the model each person conceptualizes and choice remains the action or decision process we use for realizing our expectations. The reason stress is associated with choice in this way is because human beings make mistakes in their reasoning all the time and we often realize that the choices we made were not conducive to the expectations we held before the action was realized or before the decision was made.
Expectation is a personalized conception each person develops about what they think is conducive to their happiness. The process isn't flawless, as it is easy for every person to recall a moment where they thought they wanted something only to find out later they were wrong. All each person can do is make the best choices according to the available evidence they have in support of a particular choice.
Life is the pursuit of happiness and expectation is vital to realizing happiness. A particularly frustrating problem is the expectations we have for each other. Personal expectations NEVER match up completely so the mission is to always work to maintain a sufficient level of contentment between yourself and those whom you develop relationships with.
On a side note: You may be content in your ignorance of certain things, but that is only because you don't know what you are missing! In a constantly changing world expectations can expect to change and one should always be able to adjust their expectations to the discovery of new things.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Debates on Progress and "Greatness"
Me: I personally think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that humanity is progressing enough that things are getting better for more people in more places. My answers are based on experience and a constant and consistent observation of many news and science outlets.
Anonymous: Then I suggest you look deeper into the issues and problems facing the world today. Over three fourths of the world in the global south are unable, or barely able, to sustain themselves economically, let alone fight for things like civil rights or freedoms. Globalization is, contrary to popular belief, actually making this problem worse as governments in global south countries encourage companies from the developed nations to set up in their countries, rather than encourage domestic growth. While these "insourced" companies provide very mininal economic and infastructural growth, people individually do not reap these benefits - nations that are service oriented (like in the West and Japan) are generally unconcerned about living standards in the global south, as this would spike the cost of manufactured goods in their countries.
In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress". Perhaps there is a greater sense in Western Countries towards political and civil freedom, but the problem is manifesting these ideas into reality - through legislation and, the harder part, public opinion. Even if this is achieved in the West, there is no reason to believe such a consensus is or will take place other nations - especially as Western countries - the US in particular - are seen as hostile agressors, thus provoking anti-western mentalities. Further, you appartentally assume that Liberal Capitalist Democracies are the best form of government, or, at the very least, a stepping stone to a better form of government. As we can see with, to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay.
As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems. Even if we disgard these kinds of objections, technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes.
To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished, nor even on course. Even if Kant and others are correct about this "self perfection" it is naive and foolish to think that in this generation, or in any soon to come, we will accomplish it.
Me: Sustaining economies is still a step above sustaining one's survival. A large portion of the problems we see in many developing countries has to do with ignorance in how to manage resources. The fact that people all over the world are paying others merely to survive and reproduce their ignorant cultures only serves to magnify this problem. Humanitarian aid to many countries certainly needs reprioritizing as I think that education is more vital to existence in the world today with the evaporation of resources than mere sustenance.
Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality.
The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone.
"In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."
This is completely false.
"to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay."
Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history.
"As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems."
So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?
"technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes."
The truth of the matter is people are living longer and more content lives due to medical and other technological advancements.
"To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished"
No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect".
Anonymous: "Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality."
I have no idea what fear mongering (or the news media) has to do with the philosophical issue of whether or not there is innate progress in our current political, economic, and social global climate, or globalization for that matter. I NEVER said that globalization was a "mass exploitation project". The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group.
"The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone."
Wrong. This is a logically fallacy. You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing. Nations are rational actors, however, and no nation would sign such a treaty IF it posited a threat or loss of utility to that nation. This is simple game theory. Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.
Further, how is a system of economics ethical, or even logical, when it relies on altruism? True progress would go towards an economic system whereby all people had a chance to achieve sustianablity - and wouldn't have to rely on altruism. I am not criticizing altruism here, merely stating that it is not a measure of progress; in fact it is a measure of regress. The larger the pool of people ABLe, not willing, to give, rather than recieve, altruistic gifts is a better measure of progress.
""In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."
This is completely false.""
How so? Over the past 50 years, what nations have gone from autocracy to democracy or from any government to any other form of government? Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress. This is along the lines of Derrida's criticism of Fukyuana's claim which is very similar to yours - that the world is embracing liberal democracies. The fact is that even if A) liberal democracy is the best form of government and B) there is a growing consensus toward this (point A) globally, we are still far from seeing this embraced in reality.
"Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history."
Your ignorance to critically analyse other's arguments is astounding. Clearly I am not basing my argument solely on Blago (in whom's state I live) but on capitalistic liberal democracies as a whole. The fact that I refrenced Plato proves that I am not merely conflating the stories of the "news media" (with which you appear to have an obession). The reality is that campaign finance laws in nearly, if not ALL, such states are so lax that even the unofficial purchasing of influence is extremely easy. The last statement is completely irrelevant. With laws as lax as they are, and with most politicians being as smart as they are, and with as many fallicious internet news stories as their are, there is the oppertunity for more confusion and dysporia as ever. The internet cannot logically be used as an argument for the reason why, at the politico-socio-economic level "things are getting better." The fact that the POSSIBLITY arises so easily is why the system is flawed; not the actions of individual politicians. Blagojevich was only an example of how the system is flawed. Bill Richardson is another example. The Mayor of Baltimore another. And Detroit. The fact that in the past year there have been AT LEAST four such REPORTED cases proves that this is not as small a problem as you lead us to believe. There no progress in this sense.
"So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?"
How does a television better oneself? Perhaps from a Foucauldian standpoint the internet provides a pathway to gaining more information hence knowledge hence power, but it also enables the speading of faulty or confused information, so with a detailed analysis it is impossible to tell. Many of our current technologies have devastating enviromental impacts, which directly relates to how much longer our species will be able to "progress" on this planet.
"No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect"."
Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection? Aimless progress is not progress - it is merely change. By taking the stance that the world is progressing, I assumed you were taking the same stance as Kant and Hegel; hence the "self-perfecting" comment.
Me: "The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group."
Powerful capitalistic countries are usually the first to develop such regulations (concerning humanitarian issues) and much progress has been made in the international arena with the development of universal human rights and international environmental law. Since globalization is still growing these subjects can only be expected to expand.
"You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing...Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.
I don't assume that nations will honor all treaties they sign. Your position is to conclude that no progress has been made simply because humanity hasn't reached some international harmony with other nations and that some mistakes and atrocities still occur. This is a perfectionist fallacy. Universal human rights have made it into the policies of many nations and some nations honor them a lot of the time, some most of the time, some a little less, others very little, and you get the idea. The very fact that universal human rights laws or international environmental laws are being followed a mere fraction of the time is still progress in that sense.
"Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress."
I don't view democracy as the pinnacle of "good" government. Progress has been made through many different types of governing systems through out history. I accept a political system as provisionally "good" but can easily understand the future of politics as favoring some other form of government entirely or possibly none at all depending upon the circumstances inherent in a constantly changing environment. Progress depends on the paradigm.
"Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection?"
Perfection isn't the goal, it is the model. Good enough is the goal. The history of humanity is the history of what is merely good enough. Why would you need perfection when you could settle for what is sufficient?
Anonymous: I have never been to Africa, but I hear it is nice... I have to admit it's getting better, a little better all the time. Getting so much better all the time. I also hear that Russia, China, and North Korea are super as well, and let us not forget the grinding poverty in India, Pakistan and large portions of the middle east. If I am not mistaken, over half of the world"s population subsists on lest than $1 a day.
Me: If you look at a current map of the HDI then you'll notice that China and Russia are in the green and that most countries are in yellow or better. Most of Africa is obviously doing poorly as are Pakistan and India but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been progress. Going from terrible, to less terrible is still progress.
Anonymous: Please enumerate on the "sufficient evidence" you have from news and science outlets.
Me: A captivating lecture. This should be sufficient.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Anonymous: Then I suggest you look deeper into the issues and problems facing the world today. Over three fourths of the world in the global south are unable, or barely able, to sustain themselves economically, let alone fight for things like civil rights or freedoms. Globalization is, contrary to popular belief, actually making this problem worse as governments in global south countries encourage companies from the developed nations to set up in their countries, rather than encourage domestic growth. While these "insourced" companies provide very mininal economic and infastructural growth, people individually do not reap these benefits - nations that are service oriented (like in the West and Japan) are generally unconcerned about living standards in the global south, as this would spike the cost of manufactured goods in their countries.
In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress". Perhaps there is a greater sense in Western Countries towards political and civil freedom, but the problem is manifesting these ideas into reality - through legislation and, the harder part, public opinion. Even if this is achieved in the West, there is no reason to believe such a consensus is or will take place other nations - especially as Western countries - the US in particular - are seen as hostile agressors, thus provoking anti-western mentalities. Further, you appartentally assume that Liberal Capitalist Democracies are the best form of government, or, at the very least, a stepping stone to a better form of government. As we can see with, to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay.
As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems. Even if we disgard these kinds of objections, technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes.
To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished, nor even on course. Even if Kant and others are correct about this "self perfection" it is naive and foolish to think that in this generation, or in any soon to come, we will accomplish it.
Me: Sustaining economies is still a step above sustaining one's survival. A large portion of the problems we see in many developing countries has to do with ignorance in how to manage resources. The fact that people all over the world are paying others merely to survive and reproduce their ignorant cultures only serves to magnify this problem. Humanitarian aid to many countries certainly needs reprioritizing as I think that education is more vital to existence in the world today with the evaporation of resources than mere sustenance.
Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality.
The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone.
"In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."
This is completely false.
"to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay."
Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history.
"As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems."
So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?
"technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes."
The truth of the matter is people are living longer and more content lives due to medical and other technological advancements.
"To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished"
No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect".
Anonymous: "Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality."
I have no idea what fear mongering (or the news media) has to do with the philosophical issue of whether or not there is innate progress in our current political, economic, and social global climate, or globalization for that matter. I NEVER said that globalization was a "mass exploitation project". The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group.
"The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone."
Wrong. This is a logically fallacy. You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing. Nations are rational actors, however, and no nation would sign such a treaty IF it posited a threat or loss of utility to that nation. This is simple game theory. Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.
Further, how is a system of economics ethical, or even logical, when it relies on altruism? True progress would go towards an economic system whereby all people had a chance to achieve sustianablity - and wouldn't have to rely on altruism. I am not criticizing altruism here, merely stating that it is not a measure of progress; in fact it is a measure of regress. The larger the pool of people ABLe, not willing, to give, rather than recieve, altruistic gifts is a better measure of progress.
""In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."
This is completely false.""
How so? Over the past 50 years, what nations have gone from autocracy to democracy or from any government to any other form of government? Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress. This is along the lines of Derrida's criticism of Fukyuana's claim which is very similar to yours - that the world is embracing liberal democracies. The fact is that even if A) liberal democracy is the best form of government and B) there is a growing consensus toward this (point A) globally, we are still far from seeing this embraced in reality.
"Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history."
Your ignorance to critically analyse other's arguments is astounding. Clearly I am not basing my argument solely on Blago (in whom's state I live) but on capitalistic liberal democracies as a whole. The fact that I refrenced Plato proves that I am not merely conflating the stories of the "news media" (with which you appear to have an obession). The reality is that campaign finance laws in nearly, if not ALL, such states are so lax that even the unofficial purchasing of influence is extremely easy. The last statement is completely irrelevant. With laws as lax as they are, and with most politicians being as smart as they are, and with as many fallicious internet news stories as their are, there is the oppertunity for more confusion and dysporia as ever. The internet cannot logically be used as an argument for the reason why, at the politico-socio-economic level "things are getting better." The fact that the POSSIBLITY arises so easily is why the system is flawed; not the actions of individual politicians. Blagojevich was only an example of how the system is flawed. Bill Richardson is another example. The Mayor of Baltimore another. And Detroit. The fact that in the past year there have been AT LEAST four such REPORTED cases proves that this is not as small a problem as you lead us to believe. There no progress in this sense.
"So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?"
How does a television better oneself? Perhaps from a Foucauldian standpoint the internet provides a pathway to gaining more information hence knowledge hence power, but it also enables the speading of faulty or confused information, so with a detailed analysis it is impossible to tell. Many of our current technologies have devastating enviromental impacts, which directly relates to how much longer our species will be able to "progress" on this planet.
"No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect"."
Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection? Aimless progress is not progress - it is merely change. By taking the stance that the world is progressing, I assumed you were taking the same stance as Kant and Hegel; hence the "self-perfecting" comment.
Me: "The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group."
Powerful capitalistic countries are usually the first to develop such regulations (concerning humanitarian issues) and much progress has been made in the international arena with the development of universal human rights and international environmental law. Since globalization is still growing these subjects can only be expected to expand.
"You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing...Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.
I don't assume that nations will honor all treaties they sign. Your position is to conclude that no progress has been made simply because humanity hasn't reached some international harmony with other nations and that some mistakes and atrocities still occur. This is a perfectionist fallacy. Universal human rights have made it into the policies of many nations and some nations honor them a lot of the time, some most of the time, some a little less, others very little, and you get the idea. The very fact that universal human rights laws or international environmental laws are being followed a mere fraction of the time is still progress in that sense.
"Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress."
I don't view democracy as the pinnacle of "good" government. Progress has been made through many different types of governing systems through out history. I accept a political system as provisionally "good" but can easily understand the future of politics as favoring some other form of government entirely or possibly none at all depending upon the circumstances inherent in a constantly changing environment. Progress depends on the paradigm.
"Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection?"
Perfection isn't the goal, it is the model. Good enough is the goal. The history of humanity is the history of what is merely good enough. Why would you need perfection when you could settle for what is sufficient?
Anonymous: I have never been to Africa, but I hear it is nice... I have to admit it's getting better, a little better all the time. Getting so much better all the time. I also hear that Russia, China, and North Korea are super as well, and let us not forget the grinding poverty in India, Pakistan and large portions of the middle east. If I am not mistaken, over half of the world"s population subsists on lest than $1 a day.
Me: If you look at a current map of the HDI then you'll notice that China and Russia are in the green and that most countries are in yellow or better. Most of Africa is obviously doing poorly as are Pakistan and India but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been progress. Going from terrible, to less terrible is still progress.
Anonymous: Please enumerate on the "sufficient evidence" you have from news and science outlets.
Me: A captivating lecture. This should be sufficient.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Monday, February 23, 2009
To You, Yourself
The idea of you is something that you think you know. In reality, I think that it is safe to say that most people never pursue the idea to its roots. That is, it seems everyone is walking around with some fuzzy conception of who they think they are. Defining "self" has been the goal of many philosophical debates cascading over many centuries yet like so many discussions the conclusions have varied. I offer yet another idea:
If you are you, then you are human, which means that you are a member of a bipedal family of primates (depending on the definition you conclude to be the true meaning of human).
But what if you are not bipedal? What if you have an extra chromosome, or what if you are missing an eye, a limb, or half of your brain! Does it matter that you are conscious? What if you were born Anthony and you had 2 arms at birth but later lost one in an accident? Are you now slightly less than Anthony?
To me the idea of self is fleeting. You are not exactly the same as you are one day to the next. You are not the same from one hour nor one second nor one millisecond to the next. A person is a collection of atoms, of energies, of vibrating strings, or whatever the fundamental building blocks of matter are. But you are certainly not a rock or a pineapple. You have a consciousness, you feel, you move yourself, and you change your environment at your own free will, so what makes you different from all the other collections of matter that we call pineapples, rocks, swords, bubble gum, clouds, etc?
Lets start from the top. Though we may find it hard to agree what exactly a human is we can reasonable agree that humans are collections of matter that are more similar in respect to the definition of what a human is than they are different from every other collection of matter. You have chromosomes, hammers don't. You have arms, sharks don't (thank god). You have the ability to reason (some to a lesser degree). If evolution is true then determining what is human may be like trying to define the exact point at which the mountain and the valley meet. Still we have a sufficiently reasonable idea of what human means, so what is self to you?
You are not the same as every other human. You are unique in appearance, usually. What if you are a biological twin? If you are a twin then you have the same genetic makeup as your brother or sister. What makes you, you! A crisis of identity seems possible in such cases however we know that twins exist and that though they have the same genetic makeup and same upbringing as their duplicate yet they are still capable of behaving and creating different things and ideas. They think for themselves and will surely assert they are a person that is unique from their sibling. At the very least they are made up of different amounts of atoms and we can say that they are not made up of the same exact atoms. They have different experiences and different thoughts.
Still, there is more to this puzzle of self. The very matter that you are composed of is constantly moving and changing in amounts. You eat, you drink, you create waste, you bleed, you cry - so you lose and you gain. You have grown and developed yourself from your very conception and eventually someone stuck a label on a collection of matter that popped out from someone's belly. You are not the same person you were yesterday. You have progressed or regressed both mentally and physically throughout your life, such that when you say you are you, you mean that you are Cinderella version1827364932743646.
Nothing is outside the realm of change because nothing is outside the realm of motion. You are Albert Gregory McCoy and you are 99.9999999999999999999999% similar to the Albert Gregory McCoy you claimed you were a minute ago. You are Albert Gregory McCoy and you are 92.683947437372% similar to the person you claimed you were 3 years 5 months and 18 days ago. You are so much more similar to that person than anything or anyone else that everyone else will accept your claim as Albert Gregory McCoy who grew up on Appleton Street in Cooper City, Michigan so you can go on claiming you are Albert Gregory McCoy and that you know yourself.
If you are you, then you are human, which means that you are a member of a bipedal family of primates (depending on the definition you conclude to be the true meaning of human).
But what if you are not bipedal? What if you have an extra chromosome, or what if you are missing an eye, a limb, or half of your brain! Does it matter that you are conscious? What if you were born Anthony and you had 2 arms at birth but later lost one in an accident? Are you now slightly less than Anthony?
To me the idea of self is fleeting. You are not exactly the same as you are one day to the next. You are not the same from one hour nor one second nor one millisecond to the next. A person is a collection of atoms, of energies, of vibrating strings, or whatever the fundamental building blocks of matter are. But you are certainly not a rock or a pineapple. You have a consciousness, you feel, you move yourself, and you change your environment at your own free will, so what makes you different from all the other collections of matter that we call pineapples, rocks, swords, bubble gum, clouds, etc?
Lets start from the top. Though we may find it hard to agree what exactly a human is we can reasonable agree that humans are collections of matter that are more similar in respect to the definition of what a human is than they are different from every other collection of matter. You have chromosomes, hammers don't. You have arms, sharks don't (thank god). You have the ability to reason (some to a lesser degree). If evolution is true then determining what is human may be like trying to define the exact point at which the mountain and the valley meet. Still we have a sufficiently reasonable idea of what human means, so what is self to you?
You are not the same as every other human. You are unique in appearance, usually. What if you are a biological twin? If you are a twin then you have the same genetic makeup as your brother or sister. What makes you, you! A crisis of identity seems possible in such cases however we know that twins exist and that though they have the same genetic makeup and same upbringing as their duplicate yet they are still capable of behaving and creating different things and ideas. They think for themselves and will surely assert they are a person that is unique from their sibling. At the very least they are made up of different amounts of atoms and we can say that they are not made up of the same exact atoms. They have different experiences and different thoughts.
Still, there is more to this puzzle of self. The very matter that you are composed of is constantly moving and changing in amounts. You eat, you drink, you create waste, you bleed, you cry - so you lose and you gain. You have grown and developed yourself from your very conception and eventually someone stuck a label on a collection of matter that popped out from someone's belly. You are not the same person you were yesterday. You have progressed or regressed both mentally and physically throughout your life, such that when you say you are you, you mean that you are Cinderella version1827364932743646.
Nothing is outside the realm of change because nothing is outside the realm of motion. You are Albert Gregory McCoy and you are 99.9999999999999999999999% similar to the Albert Gregory McCoy you claimed you were a minute ago. You are Albert Gregory McCoy and you are 92.683947437372% similar to the person you claimed you were 3 years 5 months and 18 days ago. You are so much more similar to that person than anything or anyone else that everyone else will accept your claim as Albert Gregory McCoy who grew up on Appleton Street in Cooper City, Michigan so you can go on claiming you are Albert Gregory McCoy and that you know yourself.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Evaluation of Privacy
Privacy is deteriorating as new technologies allow nearly everyone the opportunity to capture images and sound bits of everyone else in nearly every place. Cameras are all over the place in cities catching speedsters and those who run red lights or break into businesses. For those of you concerned in the downtown district (Kansas City) there are red light cameras now posted at the intersections of 39th and Main and 19th and Walnut, as well as several other locations.
Many cameras are owned by individuals who carry them around in their pockets with them everyday always capable of catching someone doing something they "shouldn't". Hell, we even have cameras on Mars and satellites orbiting other planets taking pictures of places millions of miles away!
Nearly everyone today is under the microscope, and anyone stands a fair chance at getting their image or voice published. What is it that makes us want privacy? Is it so we maintain some level of control over the perceptions of ourselves by our peers? What if privacy was thrown out the window and everyone had a pretty good idea of what everyone else was up to? Would we be as judgmental about another person's behavior? Is it even justifiable to have a right to privacy, even for those who are merely self conscious? Wouldn't the elimination of privacy destroy a significant amount of hypocrisy? If everyone were as naked as you, why would you care? At the very least we would have a better idea of the truth.
For me it easy to understand the ability of technology to progress in such a way that even our thoughts can be read as the electrical impulses are analyzed by computer programs designed to translate our thoughts into texts, words, or even images. In fact, image translations of what the human eye "sees" have already been developed! One day the very thoughts that run through our heads may no longer have the privacy they once had.
Many cameras are owned by individuals who carry them around in their pockets with them everyday always capable of catching someone doing something they "shouldn't". Hell, we even have cameras on Mars and satellites orbiting other planets taking pictures of places millions of miles away!
Nearly everyone today is under the microscope, and anyone stands a fair chance at getting their image or voice published. What is it that makes us want privacy? Is it so we maintain some level of control over the perceptions of ourselves by our peers? What if privacy was thrown out the window and everyone had a pretty good idea of what everyone else was up to? Would we be as judgmental about another person's behavior? Is it even justifiable to have a right to privacy, even for those who are merely self conscious? Wouldn't the elimination of privacy destroy a significant amount of hypocrisy? If everyone were as naked as you, why would you care? At the very least we would have a better idea of the truth.
For me it easy to understand the ability of technology to progress in such a way that even our thoughts can be read as the electrical impulses are analyzed by computer programs designed to translate our thoughts into texts, words, or even images. In fact, image translations of what the human eye "sees" have already been developed! One day the very thoughts that run through our heads may no longer have the privacy they once had.
Friday, January 30, 2009
A Proposal
The very first issue I feel compelled to address is the issue of consistency. Though my thoughts follow a pattern that does not mean they are constructed in some rigid universe, for the very fact remains that the universe and all its components are in a constant state of motion, a state of change. From the galaxies that flow outward marking the very edges of the universe to the smallest of particles found in something so seemingly solid such as a rock. Though the rock appears solid to the observer it is composed of tiny particles that vibrate while the rock holds fast in its position, static and unflinching until it is humbled by the marching sands that eventually erode it away in time. Nothing is without motion, so that what appears to be still is actually an illusion.
My proposal, and the method from which I will be operating, is a method based on provisionalism. It is a method that relies on the uncertainty of human knowledge, that whatever truth there is about the way reality actually is, we can never be 100 percent certain of it. What we do have is probability which allows us to examine the evidence of our discoveries and develop theories that can be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny through observable tests, not merely speculated upon, enough to conclude a high likelihood of something actually being true to reality. Simply put, provisionalism means always keeping the door open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. It is a method meant to rescue knowledge from the chaos of doubt. The natural human pursuit for developing consistency is based on our desires to understand reality as pattern seeking animals.
From here on in all of my discussions, where ever they may lead and on every tangent they may turn they will always be based on a fundamental understanding that, no matter their conclusions, they will include the implicit idea of a provisional understanding of reality.
My proposal, and the method from which I will be operating, is a method based on provisionalism. It is a method that relies on the uncertainty of human knowledge, that whatever truth there is about the way reality actually is, we can never be 100 percent certain of it. What we do have is probability which allows us to examine the evidence of our discoveries and develop theories that can be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny through observable tests, not merely speculated upon, enough to conclude a high likelihood of something actually being true to reality. Simply put, provisionalism means always keeping the door open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. It is a method meant to rescue knowledge from the chaos of doubt. The natural human pursuit for developing consistency is based on our desires to understand reality as pattern seeking animals.
From here on in all of my discussions, where ever they may lead and on every tangent they may turn they will always be based on a fundamental understanding that, no matter their conclusions, they will include the implicit idea of a provisional understanding of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
