For those of philosophical mindset

[Prince of Kitties]

One popular opinion I've run into in philosophy is the idea that all truth is relative, i.e. subjectivism. This is sometimes stated as the opposite of ideology.

 

A lot of philosophical types seem to hang out here for some reason. So I figured I'd get you people engaged in a discussion, to whit: why is this idea so popular?

 

1. If all truth is relative, and all reality purely subjective, how can any useful scientific or ethical conclusions be arrived at? Doesn't this justify a solipsist perspective as much as any other?

 

2. As far as I can tell, subjectivism is impossible to prove or disprove. That being the case, and given (1) above, why assume it? If we're talking about unprovable concepts, isn't it better to assume the one that is more realistically helpful to more people?

 

3. Isn't subjectivism flatly self-contradictory, since it itself would have to be an objective truth to apply? Is contradiction just not a problem in some branches of philosophy? If so, how is that correlated with what we see of known reality?

 

4. I have seen it stated a few times that belief in the fundamental truth of one's own perspective is basically the root of all evil; and that subjectivism is the cure. I'll acknowledge that convictions can be dangerous, but why is pure subjectivism necessary, as opposed to just a healthy respect for one's own fallability?

 

Am I making sense here, or am I just not understanding the local jargon?

[Lilith]

something that's relative still has to be relative to something. your questions are overbroad as phrased because there are a variety of different relativistic philosophies which differ in regards to what they treat as relative and what they relate it to. not all forms of relativism are subjectivist and few are entirely so

 

basically you should probably try to engage with the ideas of specific philosophers you have a beef with rather than constructing and attacking straw men, because real people who believe their own ideas have probably already considered and attempted to answer common objections to them

[Prince of Kitties]

something that's relative still has to be relative to something. your questions are overbroad as phrased because there are a variety of different relativistic philosophies which differ in regards to what they treat as relative and what they relate it to. not all forms of relativism are subjectivist and few are entirely so

 

I guess I'm not understanding the local jargon then...

 

basically you should probably try to engage with the ideas of specific philosophers you have a beef with rather than constructing and attacking straw men, because real people who believe their own ideas have probably already considered and attempted to answer common objections to them

 

Okay, I have to admit that looking back at the OP I come across as way vague and pompous, and was indeed creating straw men. My apologies.

 

To be honest, if you asked me to cite specific philosophers, I wouldn't be able to recall any; more just the general nature of the talk when I was taking philosophy courses in college. Much of it was to was in praise of subjective views of reality, the idea that science is inherently unethical, stuff like that.

 

(Mind, the main thing I got from there was what I know of feminist theory, which makes a lot of very disturbing sense to me. I can't say I enjoy the fact, but at this point I've found much of it demonstrably true.)

[Lilith]

To be honest, if you asked me to cite specific philosophers, I wouldn't be able to recall any; more just the general nature of the talk when I was taking philosophy courses in college. Much of it was to was in praise of subjective views of reality, the idea that science is inherently unethical, stuff like that.

 

was this something you were hearing from instructors or from other students? because it's worth keeping in mind that students are students not because of what they know but because of what they want to know and don't

 

anyway it's pretty hard to argue constructively with an unsourced second-hand viewpoint so i'll leave it at that for now

[Balladeer]

Truth is relative to the nature of reality. Reality is not subjective. Reality is reality whether a person perceives it to be real or not. A deaf person, though they may never hear anything, does not live in a silent world. A blind person, though they may never see anything, does not live in a sightless world. Do we, as humans with the senses we have, perceive true reality? I doubt it. Though no one ever perceive it in its fullness, reality still IS.

 

Belief in a false fundamental truth is the root of all evil. If one's perspective is not false, there is no evil in the belief... Though given the previous, a complete perspective is doubtfully possible.

[Prince of Kitties]

@Lillith: instructors, not students.

 

@Jewels: I guess I define "truth" differently? Otherwise I basically agree; OTOH it's becoming abundantly clear that I'm not qualified to speak on this subject, so I guess I'll say not more as well.

 

Apologies all for my offensive ignorance in the OP.

[Juan Carlo]

I generally believe truth is relative, but that's such a complicated statement with so many footnotes attached that it becomes kind of meaningless if you don't ground it in some kind of specific philosophical tradition. But most philosophers who argue against any forms of absolutes tend to replace the traditional notion of God or Reason as absolute arbiters with something else that, while it may not be "absolute" in the same sense, tends to function as a sort of imperative that the individual must address in one way or another. Very few will claim that because truth has an element of human subjectivity to it that this means that individuals exist in a solipsistic world where truth is whatever they think it is. For most post-modern philosophers, for example, culture very much replaces God/Reason as that huge thing which both precedes us and exists long after our deaths, which (in many ways) creates us, and which we must acknowledge in one way or another. And the really smart ones don't deny external non-cultural influence either, as much as they just acknowledge that there are spaces of existence which have influence on us that language and culture and reason (which is a loaded word) cannot exhaustively account for (I loathe Lacan for lots of reasons, for example, but I think his concept of "The Real" is really helpful in that it attempts to account for some form of extra-cultural agency that alot of post-structuralists either ignored or had difficulty elucidating. And there are brilliant post-structuralist/materialist anthropologists who take a different perspective on this same problem, I think, and try to account for ways in which the cultural and the extra-cultural meet and interact).

 

But subjectivity vs objectivity aren't really either/or propositions, and, honestly, I think people get too hung up on them (especially people who are just getting into philosophy). There's ways to opt out of objectivity/subjectivity and absolutist/relativist type arguments entirely. You don't necessarily have to chose one or the other.

 

But, yeah, it's hard to talk about stuff if you don't ground it in some specific philosophical tradition as depending on the philosopher, people might not even be able to reach an agreement about what these terms mean. With out doing that these sorts of conversations tend to degenerate into, "Like, what if the world is all in our heads and everything we know is a lie, man!" type conversations that whacked out stoners engage in when they are high.

[Student of Trinity]

I know this isn't about Einstein's relativity, but hear me out. Einstein's relativity says that some thing people usually think of as absolute facts, that are the same for everyone, actually depend on how you look at things. For example, which of two events happens before the other one — you'd think that this is never a matter of perspective, but you'd be wrong. So this is a great analogy for people who want to tell you that other things, such as, say, morality, are just local jargon, and a matter of perspective.

 

But Einstein giveth as well as taketh away. He points out that things that people think of as relative are actually not. Like, how fast is something moving? You'd think the answer depends entirely on, moving relative to what. If you're driving 10 mph faster than me, then traffic in my lane will be 10 mph slower to you than it is to me, and oncoming traffic will be 10 mph faster. You might well think that this is obviously always true, that it's even a logical necessity, that can be deduced from the very definition of speed. You'd be wrong. If something is traveling at the speed of light, then relative to each of us it has exactly the same speed, no matter how differently we two are moving.

 

Order of events is relative, egad; but the speed of light is absolute; egad again.

 

The basic tool of Einsteinian physics is a language system in which each term automatically carries a sort of flag that indicates exactly how it depends on reference frame. So you can make a statement about a bunch of different frame-dependent things, and if they all depend on frame in the same way, then they'll all change in parallel if you change frame of reference. In this way the statement itself becomes an absolute statement, although it is about concepts whose very meaning is strictly relative. Using this kind of language, physicists very rarely make any statements that are not, in this sense, absolute. There's even a name for this subtly different way of being absolute. We speak of covariance, as opposed to invariance. The meanings of terms change, but they all change together.

 

In other words, in physics the whole point of relativity is to understand how things are relative. And then to construct a more sophisticated absolute theory, that embraces relativity.

 

So back to the topic: "everything is relative" is indeed a straw man. There are probably lots of sophomoric sophomores who will insist on it, but it's silly. But exactly what things are relative, and what things are absolute — this is a serious question, and there can be radically different answers to it. The one that's right might well not be the one that seems obvious. And by doing more than announce that things are relative — by understanding how and why they are — one is certainly going beyond simple relativism.

[Cairo Jim]

At the moment, although this would be quite a topic I'd be interested in, I've had a long day at work and there's a few posts I'm too tired to read completly: but I'll leave this. Science and physics and stuff has been raised, but what aout the average Joe? Also, I did quite well with maths and science in high school, but I also have a religious leaning. Although being Christian, I've been doing a bit of curiosity research of Islam lately.

[Death Knight]

The problem with philosophy is that there is too much what if this isn't true garbage. I was in a philosophy class where the professor talked about this-

 

"If I scratch my nose and the lady gets mugged, what do you think of that?"

 

He would also talk about if you could steal something and get away with it, why not do it. He even joked around about giving us the combination to opening the classroom door to steal something.

 

And that is why I will not take philosophy courses again

[Student of Trinity]

The only thing I don't like about philosophy in general, as opposed to some particular theory, is that I think it teaches negativity. The smart move is always to criticize, never to assert. Assertion is tremendously hard. Critique is easy. So with enough philosophical education and experience, people can turn into intellectual ninjas, who know seventeen ways to kill any statement with a toothpick, but can't actually stand up for anything.

 

In the end most of the use I feel I've gained, from what philosophy I have, is purely negative. If someone attacks my ideas, I can attack their attack. But I always seem to end up doing it by going negative, casting doubt on everything, until both sides strike an armistice over wasteland, and agree that the other person's turf isn't really worth taking. I'm less impressed with the whole exercise than I once was.

[Xaiya]

On the other hand, it can promote critical thinking--that, and learning to argue is important in today's society, seeing how many issues are presented and debated over. I wouldn't say philosophy doesn't have its practical uses.

[Kelandon]

The only thing I don't like about philosophy in general, as opposed to some particular theory, is that I think it teaches negativity. The smart move is always to criticize, never to assert. Assertion is tremendously hard. Critique is easy. So with enough philosophical education and experience, people can turn into intellectual ninjas, who know seventeen ways to kill any statement with a toothpick, but can't actually stand up for anything.

 

In the end most of the use I feel I've gained, from what philosophy I have, is purely negative. If someone attacks my ideas, I can attack their attack. But I always seem to end up doing it by going negative, casting doubt on everything, until both sides strike an armistice over wasteland, and agree that the other person's turf isn't really worth taking. I'm less impressed with the whole exercise than I once was.

Didn't you say a while ago that one of the best things you got out of studying physics was an understanding of how easy it is to be wrong about pretty much everything? I feel as though classes in most disciplines do this. My econometrics class this semester was almost exclusively dedicated to the ways in which statistical research can be wrong. Pretty much any statistical treatment of anything is based on assumptions that we hope are true but can't really be proven. It would be easy to come out of the class saying, "We don't know anything about anything!" But I think the real lesson was to understand the assumptions that we're making when we come to conclusions and be scrupulous about considering whether those assumptions are plausible.

 

A philosophy class might be aimed at doing the same sort of thing, albeit in a different context.

[Prince of Kitties]

If I may comment on that...

 

Ideally I would say that's how philosophy is useful. Questioning our assumptions about ethics is useful, for instance. I live in a country where perfectly nice, neighborly folk make casual remarks about turning other countries into glass parking lots; that hypocrisy (and many, many others) needs pointing out.

 

My problem is more with

a) the idea that anything and everything is a function of personal belief

throwing out the logical concepts that actually allow us to argue about things

 

e.g. I spoke at one point to a philosophy professor who said that the laws of physics were "cages of belief," and subject to change with our cultural beliefs and values. While I'll grant that our understanding of nature is hugely affected by our social beliefs (c.f. Aristotle), ascribing those beliefs power over nature seems ridiculous. Nature is like the proverbial elephant that we each know only a small part of. Me thinking the tail is a rope won't make the elephant stop being an elephant - and won't keep the elephant from getting angry if I give the "rope" a yank.

 

Note BTW that I can easily see the application of such thinking to the social sciences. I just think that its application to physics is a case of (to use another proverb) the person with a hammer seeing nails everywhere.

 

Edit: just to cover all bases, I'll also note that quantum mechanics is (AFAIK) based on observation, not belief. Measuring which photon goes through which slit will ruin the interference pattern, and not measuring will preserve the pattern, regardless of what the observer thinks they'll get. I mention this because on at least one occasion I've seen someone reference QM in defense of a "belief-centered reality" (or whatever one wants to call it).

[Ohsky]

We are human beings, that means each one of us perceive things from their own perspective and that´s all the relative thing that there seems to be: we are looking at the same thing from a different point of view. The truth of what are we looking at can´t be reached adequately because we are designed to be limited on how much we can perceive. We aren´t made to handle infinity, our human body isn´t made to do that. Only our small parcel of reality in wich we are used to live and understand somehow.

 

Though we can´t assess truth, we can try to reach it, never reaching it absolutely, but getting nearer and nearer. So nobody could consider itself it´s owner. It´s a natural barrier, an intelligent design far high and above than our own human intelligences. It´s like a mathematical asymptote. It derives in a process of purification that it´s quickly dismissed by official institutions as spirituality. Spirituality thus could be understood as the acceptance of the humble circumstances we are the protagonists of: life as a human. It´s not that you have to be humble without reason, life will humble yourself on due time.

[Prince of Kitties]

Umm, to tell the truth I'm quite nonreligious. I consider the possibility of God's existance, but I don't see how it makes a difference either way.

 

(Even with ethics... No, especially with ethics. I don't claim to understand morality in absolute terms, but I don't think divine fiat is an adequate explanation for it.)

[Alorael at Large]

Some of this is the old science wars arguments. At its worst, postmodern philosophy makes absurd clams about the lack of immutable reality. Hume had a good point here: it's true that all empiricism, and thus all science, is a house of cards because induction itself is an unprovable assumption. But we have to move beyond that because it appears to work and assuming a non-inductive world means we have to throw up our hands and give up on everything. Plus empiricism gives us nice stuff like computers and the internet so we can have these debates; I'm not convinced the cutting edge of philosophy in the field contributes much at all.

 

Doing what God says is a coherent form of ethics as long as God's word is complete and coherent. It's hard to prove as a good form of ethics without resorting to circular reasoning and cannot answer the serious question of theodicy: what if God is bad and religious ethics are anti-ethical? At least utilitarianism starts from postulates that are on their face reasonable: pain is bad, happiness is good.

 

—Alorael, who does think there's still interesting, if hardly materially applicable, work done in epistemology, ethics, and many other branches of philosophy. But just claiming that science is a social construct isn't helpful. Pointing out that science is carried out in a cultural context is, and Karl Popper and Bruno Latour have both done very significant work with real world importance there; the other side is the embarrassment of the Sokal Affair.

[Juan Carlo]

e.g. I spoke at one point to a philosophy professor who said that the laws of physics were "cages of belief," and subject to change with our cultural beliefs and values. While I'll grant that our understanding of nature is hugely affected by our social beliefs (c.f. Aristotle), ascribing those beliefs power over nature seems ridiculous.

 

Unless he's an idiot (And I don't know, maybe he is), I doubt he was saying that culture has power over nature (or at least not power in the sense that cultural belief can defy the laws of physics). Just that we can only approach nature through the prism of culture. Thus, I think he's entirely correct to suggest that "the laws of physics" are cultural. Which isn't to suggest that there isn't a brute thing which we would call the "laws of physics" that acts on us regardless of culture. Just that we can only approach this thing and have "knowledge" of it through culture (and it's primary vehicle of knowledge: language). It's a slight distinction, but a very, very, important one I think.

 

It's why I suggested before that the biggest problem in philosophy shouldn't so much be "subjectivity" vs "objectivity" or "absolutism" vs "relativism," as much as "language" vs "non-linguistic agency." As far as "knowledge" is concerned, we really can't approach anything outside of culture. This doesn't at all discount science (only a fool would argue that humanity hasn't benefited from science or that science isn't a good way of trying to understand the world--I think science is the best method we have of understanding the world), it just sticks a footnote on it. Culture isn't an entirely clear lens through which we can see the world "exactly as it is,"rather it's always slightly tinted. So our perception of the world will always be inflected with this "tint," whether we realize it or not. And I personally think that the proper object of philosophy should be attempting to identify and understand this "tint" (which may be an impossible task in the end, I don't know. It's a bit like trying to identify the smell of cow crap if you grew up on a cow farm. The smell of crap is masked by its omnipresence--you can't really smell it because it's always been present. The only way to truly identify it is if you leave the farm and smell something else, for once. And I'm not sure if humanity as a whole can, "leave the farm," so to speak).

[Prince of Kitties]

Hume had a good point here: it's true that all empiricism, and thus all science, is a house of cards because induction itself is an unprovable assumption. But we have to move beyond that because it appears to work and assuming a non-inductive world means we have to throw up our hands and give up on everything.

 

This, pretty much exactly.

 

Plus empiricism gives us nice stuff like computers and the internet so we can have these debates; I'm not convinced the cutting edge of philosophy in the field contributes much at all.

 

The one thing I'd question is the ethical price. I'm quite sure that science and technology can be handled ethically, but human civilization is (collectively) not doing that IMO.

 

Edit:

 

It's why I suggested before that the biggest problem in philosophy shouldn't so much be "subjectivity" vs "objectivity" or "absolutism" vs "relativism' date='" as much as "language" vs "non-linguistic agency." As far as "knowledge" is concerned, we really can't approach anything outside of culture. This doesn't at all discount science (only a fool would argue that humanity hasn't benefited from science), it just sticks a footnote on it. Culture isn't an entirely clear lens through which we can see the world "exactly as it is,"rather it's always slightly tinted. So our perception of the world will always be inflected with this "tint," whether we realize it or not.[/quote']

 

Agreed. But if one is arguing that, it's good to talk in terms of "our understanding of X" rather than "X itself." Our language doesn't provide the tools to show reality as it really is, but it does provide the tools to distinguish "reality as it is" from "reality as we know it" in discussion.

[Juan Carlo]

But if one is arguing that, it's good to talk in terms of "our understanding of X" rather than "X itself." Our language doesn't provide the tools to show reality as it really is, but it does provide the tools to distinguish "reality as it is" from "reality as we know it" in discussion.

 

I'm not so sure that it does provide us the tools to distinguish "reality as it is" from "reality as we know it." I tend to think of "reality as it is" as being entirely and radically outside of culture/language. So I'm not sure if we can truly "know it as it is" in any real sense, even if I would never deny that it doesn't have an effect upon us. It may have brute effects upon us, but it's a very difficult thing to talk about as we can only approach it through the lens of culture/language (or, if you want to get more specific, "Science," which I see as a subset of culture/language).

 

I realize, though, that this does turn me into a bit of a negative theologian. And in that sense, I'm not sure what practical purpose such a radical distinction between "reality as it is" and "Reality as we know it" might serve. But, honestly,the whole point of philosophy is to kind of split hairs like this.....so, yeah.

 

All that said, though, I do think science has worked out a great system for attempting to distinguish between "reality as it is" from "reality as we know it" according to its own internal logic. But, as I said, I don't think science ever finds a way to move beyond its status as a cultural artifact, so I'm not sure if science has satisfied the problem in terms of the way we are outlining it here. Which, like I said, doesn't in any way discount science, it just sticks a philosophical footnote on it.

 

Which I only repeatedly emphasize because so many people have seen post-modern critiques of science as being attempts to invalidate science entirely. Which is just dumb (and which, I think, gets to the heart of why the whole Sokal affair was an instance of people just talking past each other about entirely different things, more than it was people talking to each other). It reminds me of people who read Nietzsche's statement that "God is dead" as meaning that the Christian God is dead. He wasn't talking about God as a religious deity as much as he was just using "God" as a stand in for absolutist forms of reason in philosophy. He wasn't attacking God or religion any more than people who point out that science is a subset of culture are attacking science.

[Prince of Kitties]

Key words there are "in discussion." "Create a new reality" and "create a new understanding of reality" mean entirely different things in common parlance. Likewise "create a new reality" and "create a new culture."

 

Granted that we're part of reality by definition, so anything we do technically changes reality. But my point is, we have the tools to avoid unnecessary vagueness and misunderstanding; even if we don't have the tools to describe reality as it is.

 

Edit: @Alorael, re circular reasoning. I think most of us employ some circular reasoning in ethical matters.

 

(Why should I behave ethically? Because my sense of empathy tells me to, and if I don't, other people will suffer. Why should I listen to my empathy? Because I have to. Why should I concern myself with other people's suffering? I don't know, I just have to, and that's not negotiable. Etc.)

 

Perhaps this is why governments, companies, and other institutions have such an easy time subverting people's personal ethics. But I can't really think of a better alternative.

[Dikiyoba]

(Why should I behave ethically? Because my sense of empathy tells me to, and if I don't, other people will suffer. Why should I listen to my empathy? Because I have to. Why should I concern myself with other people's suffering? I don't know, I just have to, and that's not negotiable. Etc.)

Eh? Why should I behave ethically? Because it's good for me in the long run. It provides increased opportunities (eg, if I follow birdwatching ethics I can birdwatch again and again, whereas if I behave unethically the birds will kill off or be scared away), decreases the risk of negative consequences (if I behave unethically at work, I am likely to be fired), and encourages people to behave ethically toward me (if I'm sympathetic to people having a bad day, it increases the odds that they will be sympathetic to me when I'm having a bad day).

 

Also, it makes Dikiyoba feel warm and fuzzy inside. Ethics is like swallowing kittens without all that annoying squirming!

[Lilith]

 

Eh? Why should I behave ethically? Because it's good for me in the long run. It provides increased opportunities (eg, if I follow birdwatching ethics I can birdwatch again and again, whereas if I behave unethically the birds will kill off or be scared away), decreases the risk of negative consequences (if I behave unethically at work, I am likely to be fired), and encourages people to behave ethically toward me (if I'm sympathetic to people having a bad day, it increases the odds that they will be sympathetic to me when I'm having a bad day).

 

Also, it makes Dikiyoba feel warm and fuzzy inside. Ethics is like swallowing kittens without all that annoying squirming!

 

Well, okay, but what about when behaving ethically isn't the good thing for you in the long run? Sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice: if you reduce ethics to self-interest, how do you convince someone that a cause is worth dying for?

[Ohsky]

None is absolutely right and justified in their actions so all you can do is BET for something, to take risks, and if you are in the end mistaken, learn from it. You are "free" to choose as long as you are unconscious of the conditions that makes you take your decision, freedom is about ignorance. The more ignorant you are the freer. Ethics is the bet on co-creating something, something beyond your lonely ego, beyond the overrated sociopathical individuality so common to be seen on the internet.

 

Spirituality as i have explained it earlier has little to do with mainstream religions, at all. It´s just a way of understanding the truth of your circumstances, your limitations as in a human body.

 

As Terence Mckenna said: "Culture is not your friend, it´s for other people´s conveniences, for the convenience of institutions, power schemes, control, tax collection schemes, religions, companies, etc." That if you really want to go beyond the limits of actual culture on your own just to experience things unrestrained by your own knowledge of it.

[Prince of Kitties]

I tend to think that, even given (hypothetical) complete omniscience, there could be situations where two highly ethical people come to different conclusions. The ethics of extreme situations can get pretty fuzzy. I personally lean towards "ends justify the means" thinking being wrong[1], but when inherently evil choices are forced upon people, I don't think they can be blamed for their attempts to make the best of it, or the fallout thereof.

 

Re culture, I have to disagree with McKenna. This culture is not my friend, but I see no reason why a healthier and more helpful one couldn't be constructed over time.

 

BTW, it's 2013 and everything that's physically possible hasn't happened quite yet.

 

[1] Partly because this kind of thinking is a great way to rationalize almost anything. But mostly because, on an instinctual level, I cannot accept that the suffering of innocents is ever truly justified.

[Ohsky]

"Culture is not your friend" in the sense that it´s always a closed source of information based on previous human experiences. What Mckenna says is that you should go for the real experience, instead of speculating about what others have done in the past. "Go and live for yourself!, go and checkit out yourself, go and climb the mountain yourself, go and taste some dishes yourself, etc".

 

You will find culture is your friend when it is convenient to you for it to keep existing because it provides you with what you need. For me, western and many other civilizations and cultures are a crime towards life itself. Not just the best option, or the smartest for me.

 

Ethics-morality is a general word used to represent what you think is best for you and those around you. Though there could be as many ethical approaches as people. And they could be conflicting or even completely opposite to each other.

 

Beyond ethics, morality, spirituality, and philosophy, there is the direction of life. And it is one that it´s openly denied by most of mankind. Why?, because it´s dreadful: death.

 

Are we here to learn to die in every sense imaginable?, i think yes.

[Prince of Kitties]

"Culture is not your friend" in the sense that it´s always a closed source of information based on previous human experiences. What Mckenna says is that you should go for the real experience, instead of speculating about what others have done in the past. "Go and live for yourself!, go and checkit out yourself, go and climb the mountain yourself, go and taste some dishes yourself, etc".

 

Meaning what, go primitive? Does that make a difference? Did it help Ted Kakzinski?

 

You will find culture is your friend when it is convenient to you for it to keep existing because it provides you with what you need. For me, western and many other civilizations and cultures are a crime towards life itself. Not just the best option, or the smartest for me.

 

Umm

a) You're posting this on a web forum. Most of which is dedicated to silly computer games.

It goes a little beyond convenient. If I did not live in a technological culture I'd probably be dead... Several times over.

c) Sure, all societies are more or less imperfect. We haven't been around that long. It's a bit early to throw in the towel!

 

Ethics-morality is a general word used to represent what you think is best for you and those around you. Though there could be as many ethical approaches as people. And they could be conflicting or even completely opposite to each other.

 

Beyond ethics, morality, spirituality, and philosophy, there is the direction of life. And it is one that it´s openly denied by most of mankind. Why?, because it´s dreadful: death.

 

Are we here to learn to die in every sense imaginable?, i think yes.

 

What's good for life isn't necessarily good for people. Would you want a society based on natural selection? I sure wouldn't.

 

Edit: N/M, I'm not going to argue this further. Also my computer's hard drive just started to fail. I must be turning into a bogon emitter.

[Ohsky]

No, i don´t mean goin primitive, it´s just living life, having experiences, etc. Don´t look at that much further. For instance, if you read a book about adventures, you aren´t having them, you are imagining them. So, try having "them" or whatever is near that, in real life. It´s just that simple. That was Mckenna´s suggestion.

 

If i said that there is a possibility we are here to learn to die, that means natural selection for me means very little already, as it´s of much more importance to animals, or to those who care about it more than me. We humans can use very different paradigms to base and direct our lives. They can be very different from each other, very alien, indeed.

[Dikiyoba]

Well, okay, but what about when behaving ethically isn't the good thing for you in the long run? Sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice: if you reduce ethics to self-interest, how do you convince someone that a cause is worth dying for?

A) It's not a perfect system, certainly, but at least it's not circular.

What causes are worth dying for?

 

Dikiyoba.

[Student of Trinity]

@Kelandon: Yeah, I think philosophy is also good for showing you surprising ways to be wrong, and it's a good point, which I'll grant, to say that all other serious disciplines serve this purpose, too. It's just that with physics, you do sometimes have the chance of really being right, and inventing a radio or a laser, or discovering how the planets really move. Philosophy doesn't seem so strong on the positive side.

 

The 'cultural cages' stuff, creating reality and all: I think this mostly just bait-and-switch. It only sounds impressive when you interpret it so it's also idiotic, and if you water it down into sanity, it's trivial. So philosophy professors say it to sound radical and interesting, then defend it by surreptitiously backing down into total banality. Thinking that there's any clever point involved reflects ignorance of science: nature is not all about us, and natural law is simply too alien to have cultural bias in any significant or interesting sense.

 

There is an interesting discussion about science and culture, though, I think. It's how science changes culture. A culture with steam engines is totally different. Discuss.

[Kelandon]

@Kelandon: Yeah, I think philosophy is also good for showing you surprising ways to be wrong, and it's a good point, which I'll grant, to say that all other serious disciplines serve this purpose, too. It's just that with physics, you do sometimes have the chance of really being right, and inventing a radio or a laser, or discovering how the planets really move. Philosophy doesn't seem so strong on the positive side.

There are positive developments in philosophy, although I think you're right that they are different in some way. The only area of philosophy I know even a little about is political philosophy, and even though people argue over political philosophy at what seems like a really fundamental level even now, we've gone from a kind of "divine right of kings" conception to some sort of valuing of each individual over the past few hundred years. That represents progress, and it sometimes has real ramifications in life (the spread of democracy and human rights). It's not the same as a laser, I guess in part because you don't have a neat demonstration in quite the same way, and you can have democracy without, say, Locke, but you can't build a laser without inventing a laser, but, historically, there has been some interplay between progress in political philosophy and progress in political institutions.

 

I have to say, I tried to read the rest of this topic so as not to respond solely to SoT, but I lost interest pretty quickly. What are we even talking about right now? Is it basically Thoreau and Walden — go out and live! do not read about living, but practice living! — because if so, my response is, um, there are lots of things that are fun to read about that aren't fun to do. I can read about climbing Everest, but I'm never actually going to climb Everest. I might enjoy the former, but I'll never enjoy the latter.

[Dikiyoba]

It's how science changes culture. A culture with steam engines is totally different. Discuss.

Well, except for the part where culture was behind the invention of the steam engine (for instance, really good black dye wasn't invented in medieval Europe until after black clothing became fashionable among the wealthy), or the steam engine was invented but nobody did anything with it until culture changed (like Mendel's laws of inheritance being ignored for 40-odd years because nobody thought they were important).

 

Dikiyoba.

[Ohsky]

Reading, talking, exchanging points of view, and discussing them is another pleasure. That´s why i speak here. Is another experience, though, who did say that reading and talking is a waste of time?. Not me, not Mckenna either. Don´t take suggestions too literally to the extreme as if they were moral imperatives.

 

No, they aren´t.

 

Besides, this thread was about philosophy, i don´t get why science gets in the way and it´s compared to it. They are two different things. Science is good for some things, philosophy for some others.... i don´t like the turn it took, like some ...science vs philosophy. It was relativism vs objetivism when trying to establish what is truth or not.

 

Science is based on this: "give us one free miracle, and we will try to explain the rest from that miracle onwards" : i.e. the free miracle being the Big Bang.

 

So you compare a thing that is based on thoughts, non empirical, with another based on empirical facts. Easy to see wich will lose... as there are much more pro-science than philosophers in general population.

 

Going for the real experience instead of especulating about what has been already discovered is to try to discover something going into the unknown. You will discover yourself first, the most important thing of them all, in the process, wich will remake or destroy your whole idea of what you think you are, again and again.

 

We take some risks when we take past thinkers as something serious to consider just because they were famous or recognized. The entire system of recognition is, indeed, flawed. Because we are inherently fallible. So many flaws had been passing from generation to generation. It´s just "think a little out of the culture box" behaviour. Culture comes to you in your daily life as it is: full of good and bad legacies.

[Prince of Kitties]

... You know, I'm not even going to respond directly to this stuff any more. I'm getting tired of it.

 

Suffice to say that I am not the sort of person you seem to think I am.

[Ohsky]

Im not assesing you are anything, i was sharing a perspective that just came out of the discussion.

[Alorael at Large]

I tend to think that, even given (hypothetical) complete omniscience, there could be situations where two highly ethical people come to different conclusions. The ethics of extreme situations can get pretty fuzzy. I personally lean towards "ends justify the means" thinking being wrong[1], but when inherently evil choices are forced upon people, I don't think they can be blamed for their attempts to make the best of it, or the fallout thereof.

And with regards to some other talk of ethics, too. In many hypothetical situations, including everyday ones, two people who regard themselves as highly ethical, who are both invested in the philosophy of normative ethics, can disagree vehemently. In fact, they'd call each other unethical. Why? Because there are competing systems. A consequentialist would say the ends are the only justification for anytthing; a deontologist would say ends are irrelevant and the means must themselves be justified. There's a basic disagreement about what makes for good ethics, and it's very hard to resolve.

 

Furthermore, why you should be ethical is a question that is, itself, somewhat beyond the scope of ethics. For Kant, it's more or less because one ought to be good. For Bentham and Mill, it's because everyone wants the best outcome, so everyone should be utilitarian. Proponents of ethical egoism would say you do what's in your best interests because it's good, not that you're good because you act in your own interests (exactly). It's a tough problem!

 

—Alorael, who would say that science changes culture relatively little in itself. Culture can seize on relatively and quantum mechanics, get them wrong, and spit out points about free will or time travel and a boatload of literature. Previously culture seized on Newtonian mechanics and seized on a clockwork universe. But the real changes in culture come from technology, that byproduct of science. A steam engine can change a culture immensely. A cannon will do so as well. Having to accommodate disruptive technology is a big force for cultural change. Another, of course, is having to accommodate changes in philosophy and social science, but it's hard for them to generate changes without doing PR work to generate a groundswell of support. Arguing that all men are created equal, then expanding it to women and insisting that all humans count, really is argument. You don't have to argue when you have the Maxim gun and they have not. Your technology makes your point for you.

[Randomizer]

Good ethical behavior allows you to suffer from people that do bad ethical behavior.

 

For example Madoff's Ponzi scheme allowed him years of a luxurious lifestyle compared to the years he will be punished. Most of those people that invested with him will never get back all their original investment not to mention the gains lost when the money could have been invested elsewhere. Then there is all the good that won't happen because money is no longer available for charity and groups that improve society and technology.

[Ohsky]

A technology-based culture will regard it´s most important changes are technology based, but there are other cultures that don´t need technology in such degree and that sole idea is a hard to swallow one. For me the mistake of western civilizations is to think technology and science are the only measure of success for all humankind. No wonder why, a soul-less world based on cold technology achievement and mathematical predicitions has no sense at all and has nothing to do with life to start with. There is technology supression already, that could have helped changed the world into a seemingly paradise, but vested interests rule our planet.

 

Nevertheless, technology Is just an interpretation of progress that got wide consensus based on forced indoctrination over centuries of no other alternatives. You get your children born and the government forces you to indoctrinate them onto schools, and later, if you want, in Universities. You are persistently told that the light at the end of the tunnel is there. The all bias of life. And no, this doesn´t advocate for going backwards and being physically primitive. What the western world is, is spiritually primitive. And what the western societies search through transhumanistic tendencies is salvation through technology, the beacon of light in a universe of darkness. But such is the beacon of light for those who don´t want to be one with that universe.

 

Such idea of salvation is continually bombarded to us throughout all the media, movies, and more.

[Prince of Kitties]

I don't think many people consider technology the sole measure of human achievement. Quite the opposite IMO; pop culture seems to have a huge anti-intellectual streak, and to go on at length about how AWESOME emotion is and how morally bankrupt logic is, when really either can lead you astray when carried to extremes.

 

BTW I did learn some stuff about low-tech egalitarian societies in a Uni anthro class. People can live off the land and work maybe three hours a day, if that; life is (for the most part) jolly good. The anthro prof certainly seemed to think highly of these societies, and I can't blame him at all.

 

Edit: also I must point out that there are different kinds of "technology." The Incan method of building stone walls would have been "low-tech" by our standards, but it's also lost, and we can't duplicate it without resorting to modern equipment. Herbal medicine is a technology. Blow darts and atlatls are a technology, and not necessarily easy to perfect; likewise well-designed thatch houses. Different societies have build different things, but you won't find any that dont' build anything.

 

OTOH, I hate to say it, but if you want your species to survive really long-term you probably need the high-tech stuff. The difficulty IMO is in using it wisely (and not killing yourselves off with it before you can ensure your long-term survival).

[Ohsky]

It is good that there is certain movements that don´t advocate for transhumanism, the extreme. I advocate for common sense. I could live personally a very spiritual life, but i enjoy some technology like computer and the internet once in a while. What i complain about is that The powers that be, want to dehumanize people into cibernetic retards. Bluntly put.

 

And, you like it or not, tptb got all the influence through their massive resources to reach vulnerable people and indoctrinate them to agree on such obscure future.

[Sudanna]

Transhumanism is really not a position seriously advocated for by any Power That Be (Who is this? Governments? Corporations? The media? The Illuminati? Either way.) It's science fiction for the moment. And your view of spirituality seems rather limited, to say the least. You can find as much spirit in electronics as in anything else.

[Prince of Kitties]

IMO it's a bit early to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance. Stupid cultural ideas don't necessarily need any Authority enforcing them.

 

Re transhumanism, I would say the problem is we're not ready for it socially, but that's assuming it ever gets off the ground technologically. I have very serious doubts about strong AI, brain augmentation, etc. I mean for crying out loud, we're still discovering new neurotransmitters; we probably haven't even catalogued have of them yet.

[Ohsky]

Transhumanism is really not a position seriously advocated for by any Power That Be (Who is this? Governments? Corporations? The media? The Illuminati? Either way.) It's science fiction for the moment. And your view of spirituality seems rather limited, to say the least. You can find as much spirit in electronics as in anything else.

 

 

That´s what you think. I researched enough to reach such conclusion. What i can only say is for others to do their own research if they want. I mean, no need to trust me, go find the truth yourself.

[Dikiyoba]

You can find as much spirit in electronics as in anything else.

In before the booze pun and alcoholic derailment.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Ohsky]

In before the booze pun and alcoholic derailment.

 

Dikiyoba.

 

yeah, the only common connection to that

[Prince of Kitties]

Not to be a jerk, but I'm noticing a bit of a pattern here... You're making assertions, talking like they're facts, and being pretty vague when asked to back them up. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean people will have a hard time believing you.

[Ohsky]

Not to be a jerk, but I'm noticing a bit of a pattern here... You're making assertions, talking like they're facts, and being pretty vague when asked to back them up. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean people will have a hard time believing you.

 

More vague is your assertion here. Point out the problem, to the person, and the question you want to be answered, all of that with mathematical precision. If you are "lucky", you will get what you wanted, but don´t expect much that as most FACTS can´t be given through word of a forum. You got to get out and search for them personally. Seeing them with your own eyes, later having to deal with the FACT others won´t believe those FACTS you had seen yourself as FACTS. It´s complicated. I hope you get more or less what i mean. No offense.

 

In my case, in the case of conspiracies, im not goin to give any explanation, it´s a terrain i suggest everyone interested do his own research their own ways. You just can´t BACK up some VERY complex things that go around in this world in a simple thread like this one, not on 100 of them.

 

And, besides, why i will care about backing up conspiracies in a forum?, to be mocked and ridiculed?, people are quick to be overtly sensitive to such topics that question their worldview and belief systems openly. Experience is a degree, you see a pattern, i see anothers.

[Prince of Kitties]

In that case, keep believing whatever it is you believe, and we'll go our separate ways.

[Ohsky]

In that case, keep believing whatever it is you believe, and we'll go our separate ways.

 

You have done that already a couple of times as if this were something on a personal level when it isn´t. it´s just talking about some points of view. I don´t try to convince anyone of anything, just that subject came out in the discussion. "question everything", "search the truth for yourself", "question authority-es", etc

[Alorael at Large]

Good ethical behavior allows you to suffer from people that do bad ethical behavior.

Not really. Investing in Madoff had nothing to do with ethics; bad people surely suffered alongside good people and just okay people. Being good can leave you more at risk since you're never the one taking advantage, but I don't think it's a big difference.

 

A technology-based culture will regard it´s most important changes are technology based, but there are other cultures that don´t need technology in such degree and that sole idea is a hard to swallow one. For me the mistake of western civilizations is to think technology and science are the only measure of success for all humankind. No wonder why, a soul-less world based on cold technology achievement and mathematical predicitions has no sense at all and has nothing to do with life to start with. There is technology supression already, that could have helped changed the world into a seemingly paradise, but vested interests rule our planet.

All cultures are technological. The first time crops were planted? Technology. The first sharp stone affixed to a stick to make a spear? Technology. Writing to retain and convey information more efficiently than word of mouth? Technology. Western civilizations have made the mistake of thinking more technology is better in all ways, but everyone's been on the technology rat race forever.

 

 

In any case, I'm dubious of any personalized "powers that be" enforcing a technocratic world. It's more of a prisoner's dilemma: no one can stop advancing because it means getting left behind. We might all have been better off if we stopped in the bronze age, but someone made iron weapons and we had to catch up or die.

 

—Alorael, who is also dubious of a transhuman agenda. For one thing, he's not so convinced that it's depersonalizing and, well, dehumanizing in the way you seem to think it is. For another, it's advocated by some pretty extreme technophiles and philosophers. It's not an idea with much in the way of real world traction. Or real-world practicality, for that matter; the closest thing to transhumanism and cybernetics are still limited to prosthesis for the disabled at the moment, and they're still universally worse than what evolution and biology have provided. Pistorius being an edge case.