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.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
