You are conflating the issue.
One has to qualify and avoid subjective opinions.
Note the example I gave above re Science and humans spreading out from Africa to all over the World.
If that African tribe has not traveled one mile further from their village since 600,000 [?] years ago and has remained the same to date, then we can say there is no progress at all in terms of migration and distance traveled. Based on current evidence of humans living all over the World we can conclude the original people and humanity had made progress specifically in terms of migration and distances covered. Surely travelling five kilometer is a progress over one kilometer traveled and so on.
Just for the sake of countering, you many insist it is regressive because humanity is spreading more pollution, killing plants and animals around the world and whatever negatives you can think of. But this is a straw man.
The main point here is confined in terms of migration, there is progress based on evidence.
We can look at other human variables and note there are changes in terms of progress.
From these progress we can abstract there must be an inherent neural program that drive such continuous improvement.
One understand the neural mechanics of this inherent ‘progress’ element in the future we can manage it to expedite progress in areas that are positive for humanity.
There are any number of measures by which traveling 1 km is better than traveling 5 km. You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which “proves you right” in your mind.
It is not what I choose to prove me right.
I introduced the examples of progress to demonstrate certain points and avoid the those that are irrelevant to the point.
There can progress in term of reduction or increment. But we have to take into account the context.
For example, if a student improves his grades from the first month in class from average 10% to 90% by the end of the year. Surely there is a basis for that increment in terms of grades.
Now would you argue and insist there is ‘progress’ if he were to maintain his grades at 10% all year round? maybe progress in less bullying and no one calling him a nerd or smart alec.
The plus point is the progress shown by the student may be of interest to researcher to find out how did he make such a remarkable progress in 12 months and perhaps there is something worth abstracting for other slow students to learn from.
You missed my original point.
Initially I stated as an example, it is obvious there are changes and improvements specifically in terms of chattel slavery [as defined] within the history of mankind since 1000 years ago to the present where such slavery are illegal in all Nation at present. It is illegal by law for Humans to be owned and traded like chattels or goods.
My hypothesis is there must be neural changes going on in the brains of those human involved that enable such improvements in the laws on such slavery. I postulated there is an inherent drive within the human brain/mind that drive such specific improvements and progress.
Thus it would be beneficial for humanity to understand the mechanics of this process and hopefully can apply such principles to expedite the progress or apply to other areas of human behavior for positive results.
Note at least my optimism will stir me to explore and if there are benefits, fine, if none, at least I have tried. In your case you are indifferent and blind to whatever potential progress there is, thus will not explore to find possibilities for further progress.
How can you be so intellectually stupid.
In all these posts, except for the quoted, we introduced ‘our’ points.
To maintain intellectually credibility we have to support the points we made.
Free will allows us as moral beings to consider different positions on moral issues
But were morality objective and free will non existent that would not be possible
Given that I do not actually think God exists then he is indeed hypothetical. However those who do think that he exists routinely claim that he is omniscient and omnipotence so those are attributes they have given him not me. All I am doing is just showing how from a logical perspective they are not mutually compatible
It’s possible to measure stuff like that and Iambig doesn’t deny it.
What he is saying is that as soon as you call it progress, you are saying that the measured change ought to be in a particular direction and that’s a value judgement. And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein. One person can call an increase in a grade “progress” and another can call it “regress”.
For example, if the class is some sort of indoctrination/brainwashing, then it’s possible to say that a higher grade is not “good”. It’s also possible to say that it is “good”. How the situation is evaluated depends on the individuals making the statements.
That’s what happened with marketing and advertising in the 20th century … “researchers” learned how to very effectively get people to think in certain ways and to get them to buy stuff. The “slow students” are those who do not readily accept the corporate and government messages. But was that a “good” thing?
I didn’t miss the point. I gave you examples of the way dasein works. There are people who think that there ought to be slavery, that some people are better off as slaves, that treating slaves violently is appropriate. Okay, you’re not one of them and the people who agree with you are in positions of power, therefore you call antislavery laws “progress”. If the world changes and supporters of slavery gain power, then they will implement slavery and call that “progress”.
Again, labeling something as “benefits” is a value judgement.
I’m not indifferent. I simply understand what Iambig is saying.
Heck, I even understand why he has a dilemma and why he can’t get out of it. I’ve spent years trying to pull him out of it.
Because they have different ideologies or world views which allows them to see things from a particular perspective
From a more general perspective everyone has free will though it is more restrictive within the framework of an ideology
Dasein takes the concept of ‘framework’ down to the individual level. Everyone uses their own framework to make judgements and the framework is the result of personal experiences. Ideologies are one part of the personal framework.
I raised the point based what I know and intended to convey.
So I know where you have missed my point and indeed you have missed my point.
“And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein.”
(subject to confirmation by iambiguous)
I have pointed out to iambiguous in another post that individual experiences and values can be made objective based on intersubjective deliberation and consensus. We will have to debate on this point which is related directly to Philosophy of Morality.
In my example re slavery, I was not referring to a small class or group But ALL Nations representing the whole World. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i … tional_law
Yes, once and long time ago, there were different views between Nations regarding the abolishment of “chattel slavery” but at present ALL Nations has agreed to come to consensus on the same point at least on a legal basis.
This is an objective standard of values where all humans must complied with on a legal basis.
Based on this objective standard, there is progress in terms of ‘abolishment of chattel slavery -legally’ from thousands years ago to the present.
Based on the above objective progress, my point is there must be something inherent in the human brain/mind that is driving this trend of progress. Therefore humanity must strive to know and understand its mechanics so that it can be applied and reproduced to generate similar progress in other fields of morality and ethics [values]. I am very optimistic humanity is capable of achieving the above some time in the future.
I understand “iambig” is caught in a dilemma based on his own framework of wrong views and thoughts as I had pointed out to him in the various posts above.
Yes, “benefits” is a value judgement - but as I had stated it can be made objective and modulated with Philosophy of Morality and Ethics so that whatever the ‘benefits’ they are to be optimized net-positively for the well being of humanity. This point need to be deliberated within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a very complex topic.
Put a hundred men and women who embody the entire political spectrum [from left to right] in the same room and ask them to pin down these “baby steps of continuous improvements”.
They can either be pinned down with some precision [right makes might], or human interactions in any particular community will revolve around one or another rendition/combination of might makes right and/or democracy and the rule of law.
Again, choose a conflictng good and we can explore it scientifically and philosophically and experientially.
I have no idea what this has to do with the distinction between the rigorous exactitude needed to send astronauts to the moon and the utter lack of exactitude that revolves around space travel as a moral/political issue – as a clash of conflicting goods.
Even as a clash of conflicting baby steps.
As I see it, this is basically another intellectual contraption arguing that your “analysis” above is not in turn an intellectual contraption. And it fails to confront the distinction I make here between the either/or and the is/ought world.
From my frame of mind it borders on pedantry.
What I would have asked Russell is this: what are the limitations of philosophy [and the tools at its disposal] with respect to the distinction I am making.
For scientists and engineers, given the exactitude at their disposal in grasping the laws of nature, they either get the astronauts to the Moon or they don’t. But, for the philosophers and the ethicists, what constitutes precision when confronted with space travel as a set of conflicting goods?
Then, from my point of view, your contention here is clearly just an another intellectual construction.
Then back again to all the folks along the political spectrum noting more or less the very same thing. Only insisting it is their own moral narrative and not yours that will prevail. What then? Well, then we have some vague and distant “future” where we learn once and for all who was actually right.
We’ve got to start somewhere, right? What would the “smaller units” look like regarding a discussion of the conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel. What of the gap between alleged ideals and a historical reality that exudes any number of fiercely conflicted political rationalizations.
This in itself strikes me as odd. Politics revolves around the actual historical evolution of human interactions pertaining both to basic needs [political economy] and to any number of conflicting wants and desires.
How on earth can a philosopher ponder objective/ideal interactions out in particular “future worlds” without a more or less comprehensive understanding of the actual historical/cultural/experiential experiences of the species to date?
Until we are able to determine beyond all doubt that human autonomy does in fact exist [to whatever degree] we won’t really know what is possible.
That’s always the dilemma. I think I think therefore I think I think I am.
But: What does that mean [ontologically/teleologically] given whatever the explanation is for the existence of existence itself?
What I do is to make the assumption that pertaining to human interactions in the is/ought world, any existing human autonomy is embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
My point however revolves around the dilemma we face in speaking of a God, the God, my God from a “logical perspective”.
How epistemologically are we expected to understand this God given the gap that surely must exist between epistemology as mere mortals construe it [on this tiny little rock in the vastness of All There Is] and a knowledge encompassed in the Creator of All There Is itself?
First and foremost [for folks like me] we need something [an argument, an accumulation of definitive evidence] that would encourage us to at least take the issue seriously.
As I had mentioned, a tennis player like Roger Federer did not get there overnight but progress in ‘baby steps’ of continuous improvements from an early age till he won his first grand slam and continued to progress subsequently. I presume you understand what I meant by ‘baby steps’ in this case?
As for the 100 men and women from ‘left’ to ‘right’ obviously they have made ‘baby steps’ in their political careers.
But in this case you have be specific with the Problem Statement.
Example, how did so and so ‘progressed’ from childhood to have a strong ‘right’ wing inclinations?
I suggest you list down the specific problem you want to address and I will lay down the baby steps they have taken in their ‘progress’ for better or for worse.
I missed the above point re space exploration and its pros and cons.
Re space exploration, there may be pros and cons re progress for the average person. But this is secondary. The critical pro is for the human species and humanity.
Human beings are endowed with an inherent drive for continuous progress, and this is one drive that drove humans beings to be progressively present all over the world. This drive for continuous improvements and progress is such in whatever state X, humans [with its inherent potential* drive] are naturally driven to achieve a higher ‘X+1’ state like climbing steps of a ladder. * All humans has this potential but not all people are active, only a % are active, i.e. the explorers and risk takers.
Space exploration is a natural progress from the discovery of our ability with ‘flight’.
The critical pro of space exploration is the establish the potential to ensure the human species can survive in the eventually Earth is inhabitable or destroyed with certainty in time [thousands of years from now].
But what is more critical is for humanity to understand the essence of the evident progress from flight [planes] to space, i.e. that inherent drive from continuous improvements. Once we can master the mechanics of this drive and replicate it, then we can activate this potential to the average person.
We can then apply it to increase the Morality Quotient of the average person or “progress” in terms of replacing religions with alternative fool proofs methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
As I had stated before, there is no exactitude in going to the moon. Because of the empirical laws, there is always a margin for error, say a 0.001% deviation from standard of degrees.
As for philosophy, I have discussed above. There is no need for precision. Humanity is driven to space naturally based on the inherent drive for continuous improvement, i.e. one-up on any existing state and I believe there is a sense within many the Earth will not last, it is just a matter of time, so at least humanity is hoping with hope a hospitable planet can be discovered in time before Earth is destroyed.
The above is not a purely intellectual exercise.
There is so much room for the various issues to be discussed and many of the conclusions can be put into action.
If is just that you are not trying but rather brushing it off as an ‘intellectual contraption’ too quickly.
As I had stated there are no definite answers in philosophy, so there is no situation where one is actually right [unless the obvious].
As for any improvement to those folks along the political spectrum, whatever the problem can be resolved in time, say next 100 years but starting with a feasible model at present.
The conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel can be very complex.
I have discussed space travel above re leveraging on survival of the species. If you note the link you provided do not even mentioned this. There are more to say on this, but it is very limited in a forum like this to go into the details.
As for abortion, it is not something people would deliberate plan for or look forward to but rather they are forced by circumstances into it. The variables involved in this issue are many and very complex.
We can attempt to resolve this issue of ‘abortion’ via the Generic Problem Solving Technique. Thus we have to define the problem, break down the problem into smaller units, analyze these problem, identify root causes and find strategies to resolve these root causes. Then we get the first draft to a master plan and continually improve on it via feedback control.
I am confident I can come up with a reasonable rational and feasible master plan [at least in theory first] but expected result can only be achieved within 100 years.
I am not very keen on politics and I view this as a very primal drive. My point is when I deal effectively with the critical philosophical issues, resolving the political issues would be easier.
It is like if I have a PhD is Problem Solving Techniques in general I would not have much of a problem, resolving any problem from wherever, it is just a matter of getting acquainted with the general matters of the subject, i.e. in this case politics.
It would be easier for you to specify what areas you are interested in politics to be resolved.
Personally I would prefer something in philosophy which is general like,
How to Know Thyself? Why the majority do not Know-Themselves? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
I believe if we can understand the above generic concept and master its principles and knowledge, then it would be easier to resolve other issues.
