IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Has humanity or humanism more killed and destroyed than brought peace and happiness?

- Yes.
4
36%
- No.
7
64%
 
Total votes : 11

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Alf » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:10 am

We must take into account that humans are always to be described in two ways: (1) natural and (2) cultural.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:On the one hand, we can speak of a natural history of serenity, by virtue of which man was able to become the cosmopolitan, worldly animal; on the other hand, we can speak of a social (I say: cultural) history of taming, by virtue of which man originally experienced himself as the beings who gather together in order to correspond to the whole. The real history of the clearing - from which a deepened reflection on man beyond humanism must take its starting point - is thus composed of two larger narratives that converge in a common perspective, namely in the exposition of how the sapiens-animal became the sapiens-man. The first of these two narratives gives an account of the adventure of hominization. It reports how in the long periods of pre-human prehistory the viviparous mammal man became a species of early-born beings, which - if one may speak so paradoxically - emerged into their environments with a growing surplus of animal immaturity. This is where the anthropogenetic revolution takes place - the blasting open of biological birth to the act of coming into the world. .... For the fact that man could become the being that is in the world has genre-historical roots that can be indicated by the abysmal concepts of prematurity, neoteny and the chronic animal immaturity of man. One could go so far as to describe man as the being who has failed in his being and remaining an animal. Through his failure as an animal, the indeterminate being falls out of the environment and thus acquires the world in the ontological sense. This extatic coming into the world and this "appropriation" to being are laid into the cradle of man from genus-historical inheritance. If man is in-the-world, then because he belongs to a movement which brings him to the world and exposes him to the world. He is the product of a hyper-birth that turns the infant into a worldling.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Kathrina » Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:31 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Kathrina wrote:It basically doesn't matter who you start with, Encode, one human, or all humans. This was also known in ancient times. But go ahead, please. :)

I had no idea of your level of knowledge and understanding when I started posting in this thread. As I read through your posts I get a better idea of where you are situated in relation to your original post and the rest of this thread.

:-k
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Sleyor Wellhuxwell » Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:36 am

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that "the great reset clears the way for transhumanism."

Horror!

Actually, the "fourth industrial revolution" is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell's descriptions, e.g. also those of the "thought police". Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab's „ideas ... are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea ... with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) "You will possess nothing" - and "you will be happy about it".
2.) "The U.S. will not be the world's leading superpower."
3.) "You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers."
4.) "You will eat a lot less meat" - meat will be "an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health."
5.) "A billion people will be displaced by climate change."
6.) "Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past."
7.) "You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then."
8.) "Western values will have been strained to their breaking point." - "Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten."

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The "overcoming of man". Everything clear? "I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome." (Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", 1883, p. 8 ).

- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 3#p2810213 .
User avatar
Sleyor Wellhuxwell
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:35 pm

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Alf » Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:32 am

Today the globalists are making the revolution, the permanent one, and the people are being fought as if they were the globalists, the rulers of the world.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:46 am

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that "the great reset clears the way for transhumanism."

Horror!

Actually, the "fourth industrial revolution" is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell's descriptions, e.g. also those of the "thought police". Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab's „ideas ... are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea ... with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) "You will possess nothing" - and "you will be happy about it".
2.) "The U.S. will not be the world's leading superpower."
3.) "You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers."
4.) "You will eat a lot less meat" - meat will be "an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health."
5.) "A billion people will be displaced by climate change."
6.) "Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past."
7.) "You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then."
8.) "Western values will have been strained to their breaking point." - "Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten."

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The "overcoming of man". Everything clear? "I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome." (Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", 1883, p. 8 ).

- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 3#p2810213 .


Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8769
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:48 am

WendyDarling wrote:Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Sleyor Wellhuxwell » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:52 pm

WendyDarling wrote:
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, said that "the great reset clears the way for transhumanism."

Horror!

Actually, the "fourth industrial revolution" is just a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution. So there are actually not four, but only one of them with subtypes. What Klaus Schwab supports, whether intentionally or not, is a communism which by far surpasses even Orwell's descriptions, e.g. also those of the "thought police". Why Schwab himself does not shudder at such statements is no wonder in view of the fact that he, who first studied mechanical engineering and later business administration, but never worked with responsibility, is a bureaucrat. There have always been people with the interest to control all other people 100%. It has always been about power. Also there have always been people with an interest in e.g. technical, economic, political etc. feasibilities and realizations. The ideology that is best suited for the political implementation of transhumanism is egalitarianism (communism), because it wants to achieve the total control of all people through its ideology of equality, the principle of equality, the eternal egalitarianism with permanent terror. And when it is said that Schwab's „ideas ... are not only very popular in the USA“, but „also in China, Japan and South Korea ... with the transhumanist ideas his book contains“, then this also means that in these countries communism is obviously very welcome.

Klaus Schwab has named many aspects that should be fulfilled by 2030, and one of them concerns all Western values, which should then be very strongly restricted or even disappear. Schwab and his people know exactly which values (the Western ones) and thus which people (the Western ones) can become expensive and threatening for them. These people stand in their way in the realization of their goals. The Westerners are too intelligent, too inventive, too achievement-oriented, too entrepreneurial, too success-oriented, too industrious, too rich, too middle-class, too individualistic, too freedom-loving. The globalists, although or because they are also of Western origin, prefer non-Western countries, because with them the globalist goals are much easier, uncomplicated, smoother, more effective, less resistant (less dangerous and at the same time more violent, more warlike, because with violence and war there are always huge profits to be made) and cheaper to achieve.

1.) "You will possess nothing" - and "you will be happy about it".
2.) "The U.S. will not be the world's leading superpower."
3.) "You will not die while waiting for an organ donor - the organs will be made by 3D printers."
4.) "You will eat a lot less meat" - meat will be "an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health."
5.) "A billion people will be displaced by climate change."
6.) "Polluters will have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels a thing of the past."
7.) "You could be preparing to go to Mars - scientists will have figured out how to stay healthy in space by then."
8.) "Western values will have been strained to their breaking point." - "Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten."

Communism for 99.99-99.9999% of all humans.

The "overcoming of man". Everything clear? "I teach you the overman. Man is something that is to be overcome." (Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", 1883, p. 8 ).

- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 3#p2810213 .


Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

Sorry for replying so late. I just don't post that often.

Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly.

Examples:

"I teach you the overman! Man is something that is to be overcome." (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).

"Look, I teach you the overman! The overman is the sense of the earth. Your will say: the overman be the sense of the earth!" (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).

"Man is something that must be overcome ...." (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 40).
User avatar
Sleyor Wellhuxwell
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:35 pm

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Sleyor Wellhuxwell » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:11 pm

encode_decode wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.

And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?

She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not "receive a useful answer in this case", as you have said.
User avatar
Sleyor Wellhuxwell
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:35 pm

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:49 pm

=D>
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?

No, I am not.

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not "receive a useful answer in this case", as you have said.

Correct, she did not ask me. You don't actually know if she would have received a useful answer from me.

I indicated a chance for a useful answer, not a zero chance.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Sleyor Wellhuxwell » Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:14 pm

encode_decode wrote: =D>
Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?

No, I am not.

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not "receive a useful answer in this case", as you have said.

Correct, she did not ask me. You don't actually know if she would have received a useful answer from me.

I indicated a chance for a useful answer, not a zero chance.

I know it from your previous answers and especially from the fact that you yourself said that she will not "receive a useful answer" from you. Look:

encode_decode wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.
User avatar
Sleyor Wellhuxwell
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:35 pm

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:14 pm

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:I know it from your previous answers and especially from the fact that you yourself said that she will not "receive a useful answer" from you. Look:

You claim that "Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly". This is what you said.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Sleyor Wellhuxwell » Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:54 am

Yes, and that is an useful answer.
User avatar
Sleyor Wellhuxwell
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:35 pm

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:58 am

Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.

Kathrina wrote:Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a "neo-speak" (Orwell said "newspeak", which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that...thus evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time. It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part of everyone's everyday lives.

Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of less relevance.

Kathrina wrote:If one assumes in any case that "humanity" is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous "humanity" is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

One facet among many is this: Humanity becomes dangerous through the twisting of meaning(relating to the past events and words), and of course, the continuing cycle of greed and wanting of power without the responsibility that entails and combining these two concepts to exploit other facets of society. Society is too large for one man's answers("vision")...

History has shown in a couple of cases that the words of another can be enriched with misinterpretation that satisfies the interpreter and thus motivates the interpreter to create a dangerous regime that opposes remaining society's sensibilities. A good example of this is with Hitler's misinterpretations - I believe he spent some time reading and misinterpreting.

Add to this that a good proportion of people are too lazy to bother with such concepts as the logical and instead their process becomes a process of emotion and/or misunderstanding. There is a lot more to the world's current state than we maybe able to discuss and discern here.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Kathrina » Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:17 pm

encode_decode wrote:Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.

Kathrina wrote:Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a "neo-speak" (Orwell said "newspeak", which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that...thus evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time. It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part of everyone's everyday lives.

Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of less relevance.

Kathrina wrote:If one assumes in any case that "humanity" is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous "humanity" is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

It is about the one-sidedness of the evaluation. Only the one, eternal, infinite evaluation may always be taken: "it will go forward eternally". This eternal "progressivism" is not only wrong - future history will show it - but also treacherous.

The masses do not necessarily need a lie, but the rulers need a lie, so that they can rule the masses, and that is why there are mass media in particular, because the mass media make it look afterwards as if the masses need a lie. The masses are addicted to the "Man" (Heidegger), they are "inauthentic" (Heidegger), and the media make sure on behalf of the rulers that it stays that way.

But how are the masses supposed to become what we call "mankind" or - even more problematic - "humanity"? They (a) are not allowed to do so, (b) are not capable of doing so, because they are addicted to the "Man", are "inauthentic".

We humans can live by nature in a small group (comparable with apes or wolves, lions and other pack animals), can live by culture even in a city (a big, global, world city is already a problem) and so just in a nation; but it is not possible in, especially not in the long run, to live as a "global community", as "mankind", and certainly not in a "humane" way, as a "humanity".
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:00 am

Kathrina wrote:It is about the one-sidedness of the evaluation. Only the one, eternal, infinite evaluation may always be taken: "it will go forward eternally". This eternal "progressivism" is not only wrong - future history will show it - but also treacherous.

The masses do not necessarily need a lie, but the rulers need a lie, so that they can rule the masses, and that is why there are mass media in particular, because the mass media make it look afterwards as if the masses need a lie. The masses are addicted to the "Man" (Heidegger), they are "inauthentic" (Heidegger), and the media make sure on behalf of the rulers that it stays that way.

But how are the masses supposed to become what we call "mankind" or - even more problematic - "humanity"? They (a) are not allowed to do so, (b) are not capable of doing so, because they are addicted to the "Man", are "inauthentic".

We humans can live by nature in a small group (comparable with apes or wolves, lions and other pack animals), can live by culture even in a city (a big, global, world city is already a problem) and so just in a nation; but it is not possible in, especially not in the long run, to live as a "global community", as "mankind", and certainly not in a "humane" way, as a "humanity".

Things can not remain as they are, no matter how hard we try. So we have to work with change. I don't know how anyone builds such a fantasy because of their fear. Change is a certainty and we should be happy for it since if nothing changed there would be no existence to enjoy in the first place. This is not to say that what the progressivists say is correct - it is to say that what we choose as vital to our existence still needs to be based on the change that will forever occur around us. Of course, I agree with the rulers needing a lie to rule the masses with or an illusion of the truth [the same thing]. There is still some truth in the mass media but only some - we have to remember that a lot of the mass media is politically driven and we know this as mass media CEOs push forward their own agendas. The masses are addicted to the man but more specifically they are addicted to themselves...why? because of apathy, most people suffer it no matter what side they are on - they feel powerless to do anything and a lot of the time they are not even concerned or they are not sure what to be concerned about - especially now with all this globalism(awful).

I fear a revolution is needed before there is even a chance of humanity but how many people have to die so that what remains is a humane state. Globalism specifically can not work since subdivisions are required for smaller management tasks and where there are subdivisions there are humans and humans are prone to corruption and this type of corruption is too far removed from the top-level management for it to be managed effectively. When it comes to government, there is such a thing as too big for humans to manage. What do we do then? Do we rely on machines to manage us? No. If we let machines manage us then we lose any hope of humanity.

We do have to choose how we live and I am pretty certain going backward is not an option but we must proceed forward with much caution.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:49 am

Neurologically addiction is tied up with the same process that drives motivation.
Aside from habit then, addiction and motivation inherit the same neurology. So if the masses are addicted to the "Man" then they are also motivated to the man.

What drives this thought has a history with me as follows:

encode wrote:What if addiction and motivation are the same things and by staying motivated to overcome addiction all you are really doing is replacing one addiction with another. So, how do we know which one is better? I think the term addiction is useful because it sounds more extreme than motivation. I also think that with enough contemplation we are able to work out whether our current motivations are valuable. When you have an addiction it's easy to get caught up in maintaining that addiction.

I am suggesting something like this: I think it is important to examine your motivations so that they don't become the more extreme form of motivation which is addiction. It is easy to dismiss what I am saying when you are addicted to current paradigms. Most of us are addicted to prevalent patterns of information and seek what we choose sometimes to our own detriment.

I thought maybe there is a way to make sense of these two terms and how they are closely related in a more biological sense. This can give rise to information useful in psychology.

So as you can see - In some way, we come to overpower ourselves - our own humanity. We replace ourselves with someone else - the someone else who we chose.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Postby Great Again » Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:51 pm

Things can not be constantly rushed into nothingness or chaos either. We are really falling forward, to say it with Nietzsche, who already knew that very well. Modernity is a constant falling forward. This falling forward is much worse than falling backward. It is seriously about the conservative, namely about the fact that we finally protect the planet, the life (all creatures), instead of always exploiting it. This exploitation is a matter of falling forward.

We need to conserve, protect the whole planet and all life on it, and you can not do that if you are permanently falling forward ("being 'progressive'"), because falling forward ("being 'progressive'") means destroying the planet and all life on it.

Conservation does not mean "going backwards".

In addition, going backwards can also be right:

RW.jpg
RW.jpg (114.54 KiB) Viewed 199 times

If a way is wrong, then you have to make a U-turn. Go backwards then.
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users