What is human nature? — BrianW

The illusion of division generated by thought, and all that flows from that illusion.

I heard a story on NPR claiming that poor people benefit from the big name schools because of the connections that they make while attending. According to the story rich students don't really benefit by attending the big brand name institutions, because the education is much the same as elsewhere, and rich kids already have the connections.

I was delighted to see that Roger Stone has been arrested.

TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPyv4KgTAA

MOVIE: https://www.netflix.com/title/80114666

LOTS MORE: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Get+Me+Roger+Stone

THE ARREST: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-arrested/index.html

"The last thread on abortion". I didn't need to read the thread, the title alone was sufficiently entertaining. :smile:

Imho, consciousness is a symptom of the divisive nature of thought. So, we experience "me" and "my thoughts" as if they were two different things. Consciousness is an experience of the conceptual dualism that thought imposes on everything.

Consciousness, this experience of division, isn't continuous but is interrupted all the time. A loud noise happens behind you and you turn to look. In that moment of looking there isn't a division between observer and observed, the observer and observed become one. And then, once the data from the external world has been imported, consciousness returns and begins processing the data. The conceptual division between "me" and "the data" is restored.

This shift in and out of consciousness happens so fast and is so utterly normal that we typically don't notice the shift. You know how a movie is really just a series of static images that fly by so fast that the illusion of movement is created? It's like that. The shift in and out of consciousness happens so quickly that we experience it as a continuous consciousness, but that is just a useful illusion.

I dunno... I claim no detailed knowledge of Rand or Objectivism, so this is more of an instinct reaction.

First, for any philosopher selling any philosophy, we might tune out the analytical mind for a bit and just observe the person most invested in the philosophy. Are we drawn to that person? Do we want to be with them? Do we want to be like them? What kind of atmosphere has their philosophy created on their face?

Personally, I'm most drawn to those philosophers who mostly just sit there sharing a deep sincere smile, and who have no compelling need to sell you their ideas. I'm obviously not like that myself, but such a philosopher seems a worthy goal to shoot for, imho.

Capitalism? Again, I dunno. I'm wary of all "one true way" economic theories. Personally I favor capitalism in the middle of the income range (most people) and socialism at the extremes, with the goal to create a middle class society. My sense is that Rand is too dogmatic to accept such compromises. I'd be equally wary of anyone being dogmatic from the other direction. Neither pure capitalism or socialism has been shown to work.

Another encounter with death which happened many years ago as a teen. Some friends and I thought it would be brilliant to get really stoned and explore an abandoned cement factory. Did I mention that we were teens?

The cement factory was this huge empty building that was open from the floor to five or six stories up. So me and my brilliant stoned friends were exploring the space by walking on these metal cat walks that went everywhere.

We're walking along on the catwalks and one of the grates gives way beneath my feet. The grate is instantly gone, and I'm poised in mid air looking four stories down at huge piles of broken concrete in a lake of green scum water. Nano-seconds before beginning the descent in to the void my teen instincts throw my elbows out which break the fall before it begins.

I've enjoyed 50+ years of a wonderful life since that day, thanks to my quick thinking elbows.

I still smoke-um the weed-o, but these days I stay out of concrete plants and dance with rattlesnakes instead. Point being, if you stick patiently with living long enough, you basically remain the same stupid person you always were. :smile:

A philosopher is no good because he is the apposite of a therapist in that therapist tries to stop you from overthinking while a philosopher encourages it. — Purple Pond

Bingo! :smile:

Seriously, I've been addicted to philosophy forums longer than you've been alive, so I hear you. I'm so addicted to forums that I spent literally years coding my own forum software from scratch.

However, there is a cure for addiction to this forum, or any philosophy forum. Find some other activity which engages you even more.

As example, I've just made the leap in to 3D animation over the last couple of weeks and my interest in this forum (and all philosophy forums) has plummeted as a result. For me at least it is because I'm bored with philosophy much of the time and am just doing it on auto-pilot frequently, repeating the same themes I've been writing on for years, to the same lack of interest as always. This isn't a particularly constructive pattern obviously.

If some young person has just discovered philosophy forums then that situation could be completely different.

Honestly, I think pretty much anything on the Internuts that takes up all our time is probably not too healthy. It's the medium itself that is much the problem. If I didn't spend a LOT of time in the woods, I'd likely be pounding the walls of some padded cell by now. :smile:

Some other stuff....

I'm just terrified of people judging me. — Purple Pond

To be more precise, it's probably more a case of you judging yourself, and judging other people too. If true, this is good news, as it really has nothing to do with other people, and it puts you in charge of your own destiny. Maybe try thinking kind thoughts about everyone you meet, and sooner or later you may extend that to yourself as well.

The thing is, we philosophy nerd types are typically not too adept at social stuff. There's no crime in that, it's just something to be managed. And, don't forget, those who are skilled at social stuff typically can't write the kind of quality posts you opened this thread with. We're all born with strengths and weaknesses, and the trick is to be grateful for the gifts while developing a sense of humor about that which we weren't given. As example...

Hi there, I'm Purple Pond, I kind suck at this social stuff, help me out here will ya? — Purple Pond

Said with a wink, a nod and a shrug. Your opening post shows you already have this gift in print so you may be able to transfer it to the real world too. And remember, if somebody judges you for being that honest, feel sad for them, because that's their problem, and not yours.

So like I said, I'm not addicted to typing at all. I could stop anytime I want, anytime at all, except wait, here's one more thing before I forget.... :smile:

Blah, blah, blah etc etc...

..we need to accept a scientific understanding of reality — karl stone

This would seem difficult to do when one insists on ignoring readily available evidence from the real world.

The troop is naturally ruled by an alpha male and his lieutenants, a dynamic that projected onto human tribal arrangements suggests it would be very difficult for two such tribes to join together. — karl stone

The small tribes were either absorbed by the larger tribes, or annihilated by the larger tribes.

Please look at the history of North America, a well documented historical event not lost in the mists of time. The larger more powerful tribe of Europeans annihilated the less numerous and less powerful native peoples, and then absorbed the few natives that remained once the invasion was complete. The native Americans did much the same thing among themselves before the Europeans arrived. The big fish ate the little fish.

The question I'm hoping might be addressed is...

Can any human invented philosophy which conflicts too much with the laws of nature survive?

Before Karl argues too much, please note you've made essentially this same point all over the forum.

I sought to explain the 35,000 year gap between evidence of a truly human intellect, and the earliest civilizations. It was clearly very difficult for hunter gatherer tribes to join together, and adopting common religious symbolism - I argue, is how it eventually happened — karl stone

How the coming together happened is that the smaller tribes were vulnerable, so they joined bigger tribes to be safer.

Now consider humankind, who reject a scientific understanding of reality in favour of religious, political and economic ideological conventions — karl stone

Gotta be honest here Karl, I'm growing weary of reading this in every post you share. Everything in all of time and space can not be shoehorned in to this pet theory of yours.

The question I'm trying to get to is, how far beyond the laws of nature can human beings go?

It's simply indisputable that in nature the big fish eat the little fish. In human affairs as well we can see that the big people typically dominate the little people.

Judeo-Christian ethics attempts to establish another rule book in which the weak are protected by the strong. How far can this new paradigm be taken before it collides with long standing natural law which is beyond our ability to edit?

The Nazis are just an example of one group of people who concluded that Judeo-Christian ethics are an idealistic fantasy in conflict with the laws of nature. The Nazis just did what all the other great powers were doing, without the Christian and Marxist rationalizations layered on top.

We are the predator, and you the prey. No bullshit involved.

I'm sorry, I don't have time for a full response at the moment, so just this for now...

I just think they didn't really understand Darwinism. We still use the idea of "survival of the fittest" today, but what Nietzsche and the Nazis thought that meant was brutal, selfish and violent behavior was natural - and therefore moral. That's wrong - and just couldn't have been the case - because hunter gatherers raised children, and because the economics doesn't work. — karl stone

Well, brutal, selfish and violent behavior is normal. That's how nature works. And that's how most of the human world is ruled to this day, Russia and China come to mind.

The economics do work. We stole North America from native peoples with ruthless force, and now we are prospering from the stolen bounty, while native peoples typically live in poverty. If the economics of conquest don't work, why did the British Empire dominate the world for hundreds of years? Why did the Romans dominate for so long in their time?

Let's just focus on life right now — Purple Pond

If we focus on right now, the question doesn't arise.

Good points Karl!

Ok, so those humans who came together in larger groups out competed the smaller groups, and we saw tribes become villages become cities become nations. Religions and morality do seem to be part of this unifying process, though probably not the only factor.

So we see that the Soviet Union, a larger nation, defeated Germany, a smaller nation. But, how did the Soviet Union become a larger nation? Through the application of the law of the jungle. Same thing with America. Same thing with the British Empire. All these larger powers were built through a sustained campaign of ruthless conquest. Today, the world's largest nation China is held together by the application of centralized systematic fear. The United States was held together in the 19th century by a horrific war imposed upon those who wished to leave the union.

Maybe it wasn't morality which held the primitive societies together, but rather fear of neighboring societies? Maybe the alpha male problem was solved by killing off competing alpha males, just as has been the pattern in nature for a billion years?

It seems to me the Nazis were pretty realistic about how the human realm and the natural world it arises from actually works. Perhaps they were unrealistic in not grasping the important role the illusion of morality plays?

You know, the Nazis would likely have been more successful if they had played the game and pretended that they were, for example, courageously liberating the captive nations of the Soviet Union. They could have played the game and embraced the Jews, until their conquest was complete. As example, America claimed to be "civilizing" the natives, while we ruthlessly slaughtered them. This farce helped keep the project from generating a lot of internal division within itself.

The larger point beyond Nazis is, how far can we stray from the laws of nature?

Hi Karl,

It seems to ignore the fact that we are evolving, from ignorance into knowledge over time - from a state of nature to become civilized beings, from agrarian to industrial, from local to global and so on. — karl stone

Technologically this is of course true. Morally the situation seems more complicated. As example, nuclear weapons are essentially a cave man's club. Technically they are far superior to the cave man's club, but our relationship with nukes is not that different than our relationship with the club. Nukes are just a bigger club, that's all.

I'm proposing that the state of nature still exists in human affairs, but our well intentioned attempts to impose a plan of our own invention (Judeo-Christian) upon a much larger natural plan results in a loss of clarity. We think we are evolving morally, when the truth is that we casually accept that we may recklessly crash modern society at any moment.

What I'm appreciating about the Nazis is that they seem to have escaped all this self delusion by aligning themselves squarely with a natural order far larger than anything we humans can invent. I'm evaluating them in this particular discussion not through the lens of Judeo-Christian morality, but through the lens of philosophy, where a reach for clarity seems a fundamental value.

And, I'm pointing to the honesty which arose from that clarity. The Nazis used lies tactically of course, but their overall philosophy was pretty clear to all, "we are the wolf, and you are the sheep". This is abhorrent when viewed through Judeo-Christian ethics, but Judeo-Christian culture is doing essentially the same thing, we just aren't as clear minded and honest about it.

What Judeo-Christian culture did in North America is really little different than what Hitler had planned for Eastern Europe. We fool ourselves in to thinking this is all part of the past we can do nothing about, but of course we could give the land we stole back, we could flood native communities with cash. We could at least try to make this historic crime right, but we can't be bothered. We can't be bothered to even think about it. We have the land. We have the cash. And we're keeping it, thus making ourselves party to the crime.

Judeo-Christian culture continues to relentlessly funnel power and money from the lower classes to the upper classes. The big fish still eat the little fish, but the wolves have become far more clever in crafting how this story is told.

That was perhaps Hitler's big mistake. By being so forthright about his plans, by so perfectly playing the role of villain, he helped his enemies mobilize their populations against him. As example, when Hitler invaded the Ukraine his troops were at first welcomed as liberators from the ruthless rule of the Soviets. Hitler wasn't smart enough to embrace that role long enough to conquer the rest of the Soviet Union.

Just finished first season. Finding it entirely watchable, but not a classic. As TV shows go, pretty good.

It's simply that some of those who express similar concerns to the ones you previously expressed never get used to the idea of being moderated, and so are never comfortable here. — Baden

There are two issues involved.

One is the issue of moderation in general, which is essential to any forum worth reading. And then there is the issue of the quality of moderation being provided.

The mods might resist the urge to paint anyone who challenges their decisions as always being one of those "free speechers" who are against any kind of moderation. The mods are people. They are working for free, a job with fairly low entry requirements. Mods make mistakes as we all do.

Those who value reason and philosophy should be able to recognize and respect the counter position, argue with passion but without a acrimony. — Rank Amateur

Nicely said, and true, but um, we're not actually interested in reason and philosophy. We're interested in using the illusion of such interest to inflate our delicate self images. This is an incredibly wise bit of reason, I feel much better now.

Again it is not a slight in any way, just have no interest in prolonged idea tennis where we both lob back and forth and at the end we will be in exactly the same place. — Rank Amateur

How dare you be so sensible!!! What is your problem??? Attention moderators!! :smile:

Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more. — Rank Amateur

Or, when reason can say no more, reason faces that reality and embraces not having anything else to say, and explores the new realm it has discovered. And anyway, one can always say a great deal about not having anything else to say. Don't ask me how I know this. :smile:

Is to philosophical discussions of theism, what Donald trump is to productive discussions on governance. Both are entertainers and salesmen. — Rank Amateur

Yea, what he said.

Still, we should salute Hitchen's rhetorical skill, he was no slouch at an activity all of us are engaged in here, typically with considerably less ability.

What would have hooked me on Hitchens is if he had later wrote a book making the other side of the case. I saw him more like an attorney making a passionate case for his client rather than a true believer. A good attorney should be able to work any side of an argument, and I would have enjoyed seeing him triumph in that way. Oh well, not enough time, never enough time...

So, what do you think? — TheMadFool

Hitchens was a very skilled troll, may he rest in peace where ever he is now. I admired his skill, being a bit of a troll myself. But he did sometimes seem to take himself a tad seriously. Thank God I never do that! :smile:

If it makes you feel better the mods once deleted an entire thread I'd spent a week working on, and I somehow survived the assault. :smile:

It's difficult to meet the different requirements that really have nothing to do with the content being offered. I gave a link to the first three chapters of a very important work. — Janis

Did your post also include some of your own thoughts why the book is interesting and important etc? I'm not a mod, but my guess is that this might help.

Hi ya Rank,

in any discussion on knowing, the first issue is some understanding of what the other party's understanding is, and what their basis is for saying what they know. I think that is the major issue in these discussions. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's philosophy, of course entirely appropriate here. It's also philosophy to analyze the evidence and reasonably conclude that philosophy has failed to yield much but more of the same on the largest of questions. It's also philosophy to put down one tool which is arguably not working and reach for another tool.

It's a step forward to understand that all these positions are built upon faith as you wisely remind us, and thus aren't actually philosophy after all, but rather the illusion of philosophy.

If one feel compelled to answer, than the issue is not the "I don't know" it is the "why are you compelled" that is the base of the disagreement. — Rank Amateur

Imho, if one is compelled to answer, and is using reason instead of faith (theist or atheist), one arrives at the "I don't know" place, agnosticism.

If one continues to reason, one can travel beyond a failure to know, to an embrace of not knowing. As I see it, the bottom line goals of both theism and atheism can be reached by this process. Reason is respected, and reality becomes rather more miraculous when the focus is on reality itself instead of our interpretations of reality.

But anyway, like I said, not a huge market for this approach.

If your post included links the auto spam filter might have killed it. If yes, mods will probably restore it. Otherwise, no idea.

To just simply admit, "I don't know" was not enough for the myth makers in our civilization. — Josh Alfred

To perhaps put it a bit more precisely, the myth making machinery out competed the "I don't know" perspective in the social environment.

It continues to do so today, including on this forum. I write about exploration of the "I don't know" realm all the time on multiple forums for multiple years to an obsessive degree. Such discussion rarely goes anywhere interesting because there just isn't much of a market for it.

Even on new age forums all about meditation and such, the desire for interpretations of experience are typically overwhelming.

I'm not sure it's possible to get rid of beliefs, but it is possible to undermine them through the processes of philosophy. It seems to me that every idea ever invented can be ripped to shreds in the right hands. Seeing this tends to put all ideas in a different light, useful to a degree, but never a perfect "one true way".

Here's an example of Judeo-Christian delusions.

During WWII we Americans were fully convinced beyond doubt that we were the good guys and the Nazis were the bad guys. We were outraged by Nazi racial policy.

At the very same time we were thinking all this we were ruthlessly repressing blacks in the American south, and treating them like second class citizens across the rest of the country, based solely on their race.

It was only a generation before the rise of Hitler that we Americans finished our century long ruthless genocide of native peoples across an entire continent, based solely on their race, and the fact that they were sitting on land we wished to steal.

And we're still at it today. There's nothing stopping us from returning the property we stole from native peoples. There's nothing stopping us from trying to make things right by flooding native communities with cash. But we like the land we stole, we like the cash that has flowed from it, and so the subject never comes up.

Elaborating the concept in The Antichrist, Nietzsche asserts that Christianity, not merely as a religion but also as the predominant moral system of the Western world, inverts nature, and is "hostile to life". As "the religion of pity", it elevates the weak over the strong — karl stone

Wow, Karl, that was a good post, most excellent. Seriously, well done!

I've been pondering this topic in general for some time (minus Nietzsche) but was wary of diving in to it as the mods seem somewhat allergic to Nazi discussion, which is very understandable.

I don't view this subject through the lens of famous philosophers (I don't know a lot about them) but rather through the lens of my own chosen authority, nature. As example, the environmental movement has taught us that we must understand and respect how nature works, that we aren't above nature but rather subject to it, and can't just make up our own rules to please ourselves.

The comparison we are making here is between 1) a "big fish eat the little fish" system of managing life that has been successful for a billion years, and 2) a human invention, Judeo-Christian morality, which at best is only 5,000 years old and more idealistic utopian theory than reality.

Hitler was right that the big fish eat the little fish. The only thing he was wrong about was that he was not the big fish. Almost, but close earns one no cigar, so say the laws of nature.

The big fish are still eating the little fish today. A tiny fraction of humanity owns almost all the wealth, leaving the majority of humans to live in squalor and disease. More to the point, we are rich largely because of our success at dominating the poor. You know, we are rich because the people making most of our stuff are being paid very very little.

What we can appreciate about Hitler as a philosopher is that he was fully committed to betting everything on his philosophy. He didn't just write some books and give some speeches like "real" philosophers, he didn't just theorize in highly abstract inaccessible language, but instead implemented his clear minded philosophy in the real world to the greatest degree possible with all an consuming unhesitating commitment. Hitler was an authentic wolf, a true child of nature, fully loyal to the laws which have ruled life on this planet since the first very day, and which continue to rule it to this day.

There are endless generations of Catholic DNA up my family tree, so I am not a Nazi, not capable of being one, nor am I'm selling Nazism. I hope that's clear. However, I seem to be happy to participate in a global economic system which funnels resources up the social ladder from the weak to the strong, because I was lucky enough to be born among the strong.

When we sweep all the Judeo-Christian delusions aside, we are the big fish, and we are eating the little fish. We just aren't doing so with the clarity and honesty which Hitler possessed. We aren't capable of overturning evolution, but capable only of pretending that we are doing so.

What you guys don't understand is that the inverse relationship between parallel interpolations of the cosmic constant varies in proportion to the electromagnetic force field surrounding both the observer and the observed leading to multiple perspective views of both the seen and unseen which of course transposes the optical perception of phenomena as it appears to life forms outside of the observation area leading to a magnification of the dark energy aura of both God AND the stone which in the end means that this means whatever you want it to mean.

But the two products don't have exactly the same taste. — S

Yes, we aren't there yet, agreed. That's why I was interested in meat grown in a lab, it will literally be actual meat, but no animals involved in the production. So far it appears that is technically possible, but still too expensive to be a practical alternative. If they can get the price way down to where it's cheaper than meat from animals, that's the end of this moral holy war, imho.

Interesting Tiff, thanks for sharing that. ER is less than an hour from where I grew up. I've heard that unlike the @#$% Internutz, you can still get a latte there.

Yea, it makes sense the military would be deep in to VR. They did invent the Internet after all. Math, math, math, and it's a Bachelors of Art?

Unfortunately, the students that attend ER are not really the ones working on how to advance porn in the VR world but maybe one adventurous soul will see the
in it and adjust their logarithms. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It seems like the military will enter the porno-sphere, given that is where most military age males will be found.

We don't need technocratic utopia to understand that part of human nature; we just need addiction. — Noble Dust

Good point, thanks. Yes, that's essentially what I'm referring to, what happens when VR meets our psychological desires in such a compelling manner that we can't break free? Like for instance, there might someday be a virtual environment where people keep typing, typing, typing and can't stop themselves. :smile:

The thing is, everybody has values in which they deem as higher than another person's values. I bet most of the people in this forum could confidently state that they are morally superior to a child rapist. Would I be correct in assuming that? If so, then it wouldn't be surprising for a vegan to feel morally superior to a non-vegan. — chatterbears

It's not surprising for NEW vegans to make that comparison, which is probably what's happening here. But such comparisons are completely unnecessary. In fact, most people do whatever they do for whatever reason that works for them, and aren't concerning themselves with a comparison to somebody else.

As I see it, this is less a technology issue and more a human psychology issue. As example, ancient cave men sat around the fire telling each other stories in which the hunters were always brave and their women always beautiful, when in fact this was likely rarely the case.

This is what we're up against, technology is simply enabling that which we've always wanted from the very beginning.

We should all be working on making this temporary reality less fragile. — Nils Loc

This is a noble sensible sentiment which I agree with. But it seems the accelerating emergence of virtual realities will make this ever more unlikely. Why would a person concern themselves with the highly imperfect real world when they've converted a room in their house in to a perfect alternate reality?

This is so cliche, but isn't this already happening to a significant degree as vast human populations are being sucked headlong in to tiny cell phone screens? If stupid inane TV or tiny cell phone screens can be so incredibly inviting to us, what chance will we have as the virtual realm becomes ever harder to distinguish from the real world?

After our basic physical needs, the brain wants what the brain wants, and it seems it will take it where ever it can find it.

Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan? — chatterbears

Please explain to us why morality should be our all important concern when it comes to enhancing the welfare of animals.

As example, my wife has raised and released at least 1,000+ orphaned animals without ever once making any kind of moral statement regarding what anybody else should or shouldn't do.

As example, factory non-animal sourced meat simulation products would give meat eaters exactly the taste they seek without harming animals, and if the price is right, morality need not have anything at all to do with it.

Please explain to readers why you show no interest at all in these kind of animal service activities, and all you want to talk about are moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, moral equations, endlessly ad nauseam. We already know the answer to this, and are wondering if you're capable of ever figuring it out.

Please explain why we should believe that lecturing people about their morality is the most effective way to change human behaviors which have been routine for hundreds of thousands of years.

Please explain why you simply don't get that doing the fantasy superiority morality dance will convert a few people, while alienating ten times that many. Fun for the holier than thou moralizer, bad news for animals.

Morality has a very limited effect on any of this. Everyone involved, people and animals, are going to do whatever they perceive to be in their own self interest, and the name of the game is to align those interests so that they conflict to the least degree possible.