If morality is a product of evolution, then what the human is in the order of existing things becomes a puzzle.
But the puzzle is not like describing a quality as coming from different antecedents. Knowing that the source for a particular way of thinking is involved with stuff outside the presuppositions of that thought doesn't mean one has grounds to dismiss it.
To the degree that the assumptions are not compatible with each other should be the caution of comparison as such.

I have started the book and it is interesting to me how much emphasis is put upon distinguishing the "original contractors" from the inheritors of the "social contract" deal.
In terms of having a seat at the table, the "capabilities" factor reminds me of Kierkegaard saying that freedom is the ability to do things.
So participation is, in that sense, shaped by ability, even if not specifically recognized by a particular deal.

In theater, it is called the suspension of disbelief.
Your comment is interesting from the point of view of how to chart the path of an individual psyche.
The experience of dreams plays a part.
In terms of proving one set of circumstances to be the case over another, dreams are arbitrary in a way that waking life is not.

Zhuangzi figured you either got it or you didn't.
And then spent pages upon pages torturing those who did not. Explaining in detail where people get it wrong.
There is a disconnect between the different expressions.

I don't get it.
Are you asking for an answer to something you have declared there cannot be one to?

No, I was looking at how the use of "nature" gets used for different purposes and was wondering how you got so certain about the version you have presented.
Social engineering is not a thing without an argument about it.
Are you presenting it as a fact? Separable from other facts?
Pray tell.

I have just acquired the book and will read it.

I am familiar with the Thoreau references and the uncertainty over whether he is the original author and what not.

How that might relate to my comment I will leave to you to clarify.

Do I get a cookie if I respond correctly?
Fuck that.

Laissez faire means the government should not interfere in the economy. It doesn't advise people not to cooperate. — frank

Treating the "economy" as a natural condition is problematic. The argument against planning and control of markets has been made by such as Hayek and Milton. They argue that withdrawal of control serves social ends such as the expansion of prosperity and the decrease of tyranny. Whatever one thinks about those policies as means to their stated ends, they both assume that one needs to overcome "natural" reactions to make them effective in terms of outcomes. They embraced the values of the progressive citizen as articulated by their interlocutors but claimed those interlocutors were defeating themselves through attempts to directly create certain conditions.

Introducing the ideas of Social Darwinism into the discussion is a matter of offering too much and too little at the same time.

Those ideas are too much in the way they frame the "Letting it play out" argument of economists to be some kind of acceptance of a natural order. Hayek is closer in spirit to Hobbes than Rousseau regarding the social contract. Hobbes' way to stop the "natural" war between individuals is to agree to an order that binds them together. Rousseau sees nature as something order screwed up. In this battlefield of differing presuppositions, the introduction of evolution is a step back from the fray. Being a species is relationship to other species. The existential crisis of being whatever form of life you happen to be is no longer confined to the struggle within a kind you happen to be suffering but is connected to whatever Life is and the other stuff that is alive.

That last observation shows how the idea of Social Darwinism is too little for the issue under discussion. The biggest fish in the sea, if one is to look at our existence from the point of view of evolutionary development, is Ecology. The "survival of the fittest" idea only makes sense in a region where the "selection" is not a search for the "fit" but an acceptance that the balancing of life forms is well beyond the matter of what we highly prize. The evolutionary perspective calls for humility in the way Spinoza called for when asked to decipher the ends of the Creator.

Socialism didn't work anywhere where it was tried — ssu

Where was it tried?

Marx outlined two phases of progress that must be completed before communism can prevail. — Wallows

Which texts are you referring to?
There are a lot of interpretations. Some argue the reverse of what you are saying about "phases."

It seems like both? If I read you right, do you mean a larger participation in an existing set of privileges? — csalisbury

I do mean such a participation. It is also an expansion of "rights" but with the condition that one breed for and exemplify a particular type. The selection is a deliberate effort to be accepted as a Roman. As a matter of society, it is the conscious identification with a type that does the sorting. To equate this process with "natural selection" as promulgated in the theory of the evolution of species is in the service of articulating a type.

The prosperous mercantile citizen is as natural in his or her environment as a Spartan was in a Spartan community. As Veblen pointed out, conspicuous consumption is a means of signalling to the others in your tribe that you belong and are to be fully accepted as a fellow human being.

In regards to your remarks about Roman society, one of their innovations was a process of introducing new citizens on a large scale.
So, is that an expansion of rights or a participation in a larger a set of privileges?

I agree that ambition and rewards for achievement are not antithetical to "society" as the collection of what people value at the same time. People have been raising children for time out of mind with the purpose of replicating what they see as the best thing to be. To that point, Margaret Thatcher once said: "Society does not exist. There are only people and their families."

Her statement is absurd from the point of view that she said it while shaping the circumstances of such people. But there is a value in the point of view being expressed. There is a connection between civil institutions and what makes a person more or less effective within them. A parent makes their best effort at preparing their child for whatever that is. What is strong for some situations is a weakness in others. In some times, being strong and forthright and vocal about things will get you killed. In others, being silent and reticent will make you a door mat for others.

And it is at this point the question of the best form of government should be framed. There are conflicting versions of the best things.

We are not ready for Plato's discussion of the Good.

By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter. — frank

The proponents of the "strong" as a right in itself do not subscribe to the concept of society.
Pick a lane.

One question I come away with from reading Wittgenstein is what is the ontology that is outside of language as a limit of what can be expressed?
There are many examples of this question being shown to actually be about other problems. But I don't recall him blowing off the question as such.
Correct me if I am wrong.

The trust between people is a critical point of reference in the working world. That is not necessarily aligned with law that gives one redress for crimes committed.
On top of not telling lies and screwing other people, the imperative to not treat other people as means to an end is really difficult when doing just that is your job description.

Fair enough. But the OP does"

In this article it speculates the only thing real is information and how we perceive reality is a product of our brain or at the very least what we perceive as our brain. — christian2017

This article is another iteration of asking "if you have a brain, why should it be hooked up with what is actually happening."
There you are, using your brain, wondering if it is doing a good job of letting you know what is happening around the brain.
But nobody gave you a brain {that can be described}. It is found after accepting particular assumptions.
I love my brain. I am glad it can be understood as a place where stuff is happening.
But it is the furthest thing from self-explanatory.

In regards to Nietzsche, you are correct about the "crazed prophet" part.
But he did have this other register: We know stuff because of this huge apparatus of words that we use while understanding only a portion of it.
He was a philologist.

From what?

To ask this:

I guess the main question is what is the nature of logic and how come it is that its nature is so useful to humans? — schopenhauer1

is to look at it as something that is not necessary in every instance. And that point of departure is "outside" of accepting the process as necessary as such.

I thought the OP introduced the idea.
I am not interested in making fun of it. It is the outline of many interesting things.
My question was not rhetorical.

Did I just not ask that question?

How do I get outside of logic to ask about it?
Aren't I using logic to talk about it?
My brain hurts.

There are Christians who would agree with you and those who would not. There is a large contingent preparing for the End of Days. Others are bound more closely to "this world" as the expression of their faith.

You are still not using the reply function. I just happened to see this.

Can you quote Auden's paraphrase?

Nietzsche's implication is that we can't do anything about it, so fully embrace it. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure about the inescapable quality. Your point of view is an interesting contrast to the many who have complained that our circumstances are not as changeable as Nietzsche intimated.

Degrees of freedom are the most not integrated things in his writings. The inheritance that cannot be denied is placed side by side with choices an individual can make.

Nietzsche aside, I am not a suitable evaluator of the "antinatalist" position. Being a parent comes with certain presuppositions.

The Eternal Recurrence/Return idea of life simply repeating over and over, similar to the Buddhist/Hindu reincarnation story, seems pretty hellish. The problem is that Nietzsche tries to "abundance the hell" out of life.. — schopenhauer1

I accept that Nietzsche's narrative has much of that quality of seeing everything on the brink in order to goad the reader to leave their point of view to take another. But I am not sure what is being presented is a replacement of a view.

He keeps speaking of the next generations as the ones who have to find alternatives.

The Eternal Recurrence is presented as a way to experience the present moment in a different way than the "Christian" preparation for the next phase/life model. The view is not integrated with the "gay science" criteria of health.

It does not look like a system to me. There are these frames of reference and there is an anti-Hegelian taunt to deal with the regions described. He leaves his notebook attempts to piece it all together out of his published writings.

Why should he help his readers? Ecce Homo asks that question over and over again and laughs at their suffering.

So, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent? — Wallows

And here we are, not sure if that is the right answer.
I do like the proposition because it does not claim what it cannot describe.

We are the created. That such a thing happened is of great interest. But the way we talk about that captures some things and misses others.

Yes; but, God is a solipsist or not? — Wallows

The idea is only worth entertaining if he/she is not.

I meant why should any creator bother with all of this. If we are the creatures trying to get a clue what is going on, the signs on the road are mostly posted by us, the clueless people on the road.

If your are going to have a creator who made all the stuff, it is going to be difficult to talk about.
My first question is why bother with all this.
The emptiness of the creator is the root of many myths formed around the idea.
An interesting quality of Taoist writings is that the teaching is purely ostensive. We cannot talk about what we want to talk about.

I agree that the idea was useful in the 18th century. But is it still useful? — Dusty of Sky

Useful toward what end?

The idea is the foundation of all of the presently employed declarations of human rights. If "you" are opening up the principle up to questioning, where are "you" when there is no longer a boundary between "you" and those who would decide what your value is compared with the others?

K said that faith was unintelligible, and to communicate it was to speak in tongues — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, but he also went to great efforts to relate our experiences to a breaking point. That experience of ourselves is only information under certain conditions. He continues to reason about that.

The way I interpreted it, K's philosophy considers faith and understanding to be antithetical, and in this light, he praises Socratic Ignorance. — Merkwurdichliebe

Maybe it would be be helpful to compare Kierkegaard's efforts to Pascal's. Both worked to express the difference between faith and reason as ironic. Pascal said the absurdity of the Christian view was a better description of the human condition than more logically consistent structures. That is an example of presenting the matter as antithesis.

But Kierkegaard is doing something different. The thing called faith is never given.

In the language used in the Philosophical Fragments, the Teacher changes the condition of the student. This is presented as the alternative to Socrates appealing to Recollection as why one can learn what is true.

So, if the way to understanding is dependent upon changing because the quality that makes it possible is outside of oneself, that agency that can change a person better be around or the person is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

I may be dumb, but I am genuine.
I have no idea who would bring about the changes you ask for.