Are we addicted to thought? — Xtrix

Yes, we are and this addiction is what you expect from people who don't want to be basic. Whenever you try knowledge for the first you would not stop using it because you feel you are growing as a person. There is a huge difference between the ones who are addicted to thought and the ones who do not think at all.

Are we amateur “philosophers” steeping ourselves in excess? — Xtrix

Speaking about myself, yes.

, is what is needed for better philosophy actually a fasting and detoxification of thought? — Xtrix

I would not put "better" with "fast" in the same phrase. Quality needs their own time and progress. If we really want a more qualitative philosophy we have to start to thinking a lot then. But if we think fast we have the risk of not thinking so deeply.

According to the research done by Frans de Waal, the differences are not exclusive to humans.

The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders? — Fooloso4

Thanks for sharing this link. Interesting, indeed.

Kubrick-Clarke's story is an odyssey, an endless(?) journey, rather than merely a "quest" to reach some definitive, knowable destination; and perhaps this is the Monolith's odyssey – it's simulations – not (just) ours? :chin: — 180 Proof

:sparkle: :100:

The question of simulation becomes one of who is making up who. — Paine

My bet goes to the monolith. This structure is always there and even before the appearance of humans. So, my guess is that the monolith is the one who is making up our "reality"

I hope youre saying that ironically because most sarcasm is used in a condescending way. — introbert

:smirk: :eyes:

The ironic interpretation of any text immediately subverts the writers intentions as reading it as sarcasm — introbert

But I think sarcasm can be used in an intellectual perspective. It is even a tricky tool to maintain the conversation alive and their nature can show off the intelligence of a person. To be honest, I cannot see sarcasm used with bad faith or malice

Irony exists as kind of an argument and to acknowledge it accepts an internal inconsistency in its object. — introbert

Yes, agreed. But irony is used as a tool to get benefits too. To be honest, I am bad at using irony because I connect such act with lying...
Irony is like an appropriate use of good words (or intentions) but holds a mask behind of it which seems to be dangerous...
Governments and governors tend to speak with a lot of irony. They call it "rethoric skills" I label it as "sick liars"

Of all the philosophical ubiquities, the most tedious is "does such-and-such really exist?"

Yes, it does, since you are talking about it. — Banno

:clap: :100:

Symbolically, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown – e.g. individual death; species extinction; event horizon; cosmic horizon; heat-death of the universe – the a priori strange attractor that self-organizes intellect — 180 Proof

Good explanation :up: :100:

Then this is why the hominids felt hesitation when they approached to the monolith. The unknown itself creates a lot of uncertainty and your examples are perfect. Who don't feel tension when they concern about horizon, death, cosmic time, universe significance, etc...? The monolith gathers all of these archetypes. But exactly in this concept... how can we treat the monolith? As an enemy or as an adviser?
The scene where the monolith appears "again" in the moon is important. The astronauts feel blurred but they do not hesitate and even start to investigate it... probably because the humankind evolved in the knowledge towards the monolith epicentre?

It suggests what in my book are Platonic forms of minds with typical sets of ideas, attitudes, approaches, values, and so on. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Yes, you are correct.

But the simplicity is what it impressed me. While when I see a giant Buddha in Thailand, India, Vietnam, etc... I interpret it as tremendous and striking but not "surprising" either "interesting" because those religious figures were put there just to indoctrinate people.

If the monolith were to represent the Jungian shadow, this leaves the question of why the monolith on the moon directs mankind towards Venus, though — Tzeentch

It could be another interpretation in the same direction that the monolith simply is there to help the humankind. It could be even a criticism for not being ourselves able to make a real progress without "exterior help" like if the monolith would never been there we as specie would never developed our knowledge.

It's supposedly far more likely that the monolith simply assembled itself from nearby matter & energy and did its thing than that it were constructed and placed at the watering hole by a super-advanced alien civilization? Interesting, oui? — Agent Smith

It is literally what I think about the nature of the monolith. It is clear that is an abstract object which is far more intelligent than human race. I guess we treat it as "complex" because we don't understand it. Our knowledge didn't increased that much to have the same language as a monolith.
But we have an interesting question here... does the monolith understand us?

pointed out, the monolith appears to be rather simple. — Agent Smith

A simplicity full of complexities.

could the monolith be a symbol for the Jungian shadow self? — Tzeentch

Indeed. The article I read days ago made a lot of references to Jung's archetypes. The author of the article defined the monolith as an "unconscious symbol who shares common characteristics to all the civilisations"

Well, I guess it is better to share the quote itself:

Revealing that the monolith is inspired by the theory of Jungian archetypes devised by Carl Jung, this concept is defined by images and themes that derive from the collective unconscious. Jung believed that certain symbols from different cultures are often very similar as they have been developed from archetypes shared by a collective human unconscious.

Even Kubrick in the interview said: That’s why we settled on the black monolith — which is, of course, in itself something of a Jungian archetype...

Apophenia/Pareidolia? — Agent Smith

Yes! :smile:

So, god/alien in human form was on old trope — Agent Smith

I think it is harder to believe when it appears in a human form.

Why not a black, 10 ft. tall cuboid? Now, that's something no one's seen before; — Agent Smith

No one seen before and so enigmatic and original. Sometimes simplicity makes the best impact. Now that I am deeply concerned about the archetype of the monolith... Most of the devices look like it. If you look at a cellphone closely you would see a lot similarities with a monolith.

Why did God, He would be the most advanced alien we could hope to encounter, take a human form, as Jesus? — Agent Smith

I hope to not encounter anyone at all. The mysticism of the unknown is what makes the monolith so interesting.
Nevertheless, I bet that the ones who put the monolith on earth were there previously to God and Jesus Christ :wink:

Yet, if you haven't seen it, what experience do you base the knowledge on? — Tate

:up: :100:

it is illegal to use marijuana because of supposed harm it causes, but the widespread enforcement of the law creates much more harm.

Why? The enforcement of law towards the use of marijuana is based on prevent health problems. I do not see it as irony... It could be a good example of this if the state uses it with the aim of collecting taxes from the citizens as they already do with alcohol and tobacco.

The first, on the plains of Africa, is used to improve Moonwatcher's intelligence. The second, in orbit around Jupiter (Saturn in the book) is used to transport Bowman via a worm hole. The third, in the Hotel room, transforms him into a "star child"... — Banno

the moon stuff in your description — Paine

Interesting. We can interpret monoliths were put by aliens to "test" the habitants of earth and since the first one on the Plains of Africa, there were three different monoliths making an important impact to our actions.
Nonetheless, despite the monolith has a weird atmosphere of the unknown we cannot say if it was put on the earth with negative purposes. If they tried to communicate with us through the monoliths we can think the aliens intended to be "diplomatic"... or the simple fact that there always been a clever civilisation watching our lives.

or a silent harbinger from an alien source which seeks to guide humans at key moments. — Tom Storm

I like your theory because it could mean that aliens would help us and be our partners. Aliens tend to be represented as "enemies" or "intruders" of the humans or earth.
But what could be a key moment for humans? The fine line between us and the other species who didn't evolved like the humankind?

(If you want to entertain a particularly spooky thought - our society is completely filled with monoliths - computer/telephone/tv screens.) — Tzeentch

:fire: :100: :clap:

Interesting point of view and very argumentative answer. I have perceived that most of you interpret the monolith as a characteristic of technology.
Nevertheless, sometimes I tried to think as a "proof" of this advanced and specific technology. I mean, probably the monolith was put there as a sign of a older but wiser civilisation who habited the earth previously to hominids, thus us as humans.
The most mind blowing scene is when the monolith appears again in the moon... it is a very substantive scene. We can also interpret that we are behind of something else. Whenever we progress into something new a rare civilisation already did it or was there and I think the monolith is a "proof" that "we do not discover anything" because a different civilisation already did it.

Do you know Rob Ager and his YouTube channel Collative Learning? He has a lot of material on Kubrick movies, including 2001 and the meaning of the monolith. — Tzeentch

No, I never heard of him. I going to check him out.

It seems to me that Brandan Morris, one of my favorite sci fi writers, observed a batch of monoliths on Enceladus some years in our future, They weren't doing much, but they had rescued Frank Poole? the astronaut who HAL9000 had tossed into space--his mental being, anyway.

I thought the monoliths were perfect as aliens: strange, mysterious, other-worldly, potent, awesome (in the original meaning of the word), etc. — Bitter Crank

Exactly, this is the same feeling I have when I saw the monolith. It is there not doing much but at the same time it makes a rare atmosphere because you can feel the abstract object "should not be there" because it is not the "correct" place for a monolith.
Thanks for sharing your view on the book. I never read it but I think I should give it a try the next year. It seems to be a good book.

To the extent that encounters with the monolith has 'made' us into something, the crisis with the AI named HAL show us another collision of the natural with the artificial. — Paine

:up: :100:

2001 was rubbish when I first saw it at around 15 years of age but I began to appreciate it as I got older. — universeness

This experience is common. 2001 is a very complex film. The first time I saw it I didn't understand anything... it took some years and a lot of readings in internet to get a basic sense on the film!

Stone age folks had better imagination than Stanley Kubrick - the more relatable a form aliens assume, the easier it is to deliver the message (supposing there is one). — Agent Smith

What!? :scream:

Is a rectangular, black, 10 feet tall monilith in any way something that would be familiar to pre-sapiens? Very unllikely, and to that extent it's a bad idea. — Agent Smith

I don't think it is a bad idea at all. Monolithic symbolism is pretty interesting. We can have a large debate on the significance. What I intended to start in this thread was the search for answers of what Kubrick was thinking when he decided to put a monolith in a sci-fi film.

Thank you so much for your reply. You provided a lot of good arguments. I like how you explain it as a "dawn" for human's knowledge and development.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to point out that many people interpreted the scene as "scary" due to the randomness and the way of hominids acted on the monolith. But as you noticed, we also have to keep our eyes on the hominid who throws a bone in the sky. To be honest with you, the first time I saw the scene I interpreted as a "violent" specie surviving in the chaos.
But the way you explained it changed my view a little bit. It is true that we consider it as symbol of creation and not destruction.

I am remembering now that the monolith appears in other scenes during the film. But my memories are vague, I think I should watch it again.

I didn't sequel of 2010! Wow, thanks for sharing the video. Now, I see the alien theory gains more rigidity.
I see (as you explained) the monolith had duplicates. To be honest, I don't like that representation. An only, unique, solitary monolith is what makes a lot of debate.
When you see a lot of them you feel outrageous :lol:

To me, it always signified the Christian stone tablets (commandments) but this had nothing written on it.
So, all the hominids stared at its smooth, designed, cuboid shape and knew none of their kind could have created it so ........ gods?

Interesting view! I never gave it a religious significance. It even takes a while until I have a clear idea of what the monolith means. It is true that we should see the movements and expressions of the hominids. I remember that whenever they approach to the monolith they feel hesitated...
Probably they feel that way because of the unknown?

I respect Kubrick's answers in the interview. But I guess he just replied in an artistic experience not philosophical one.

Facts are independent of intelligence (knower unnecessary) while knowledge requires an intelligence (knower necessary) — Agent Smith

:up: :100:

given your recent posts extolling the life of a samurai, I wondered whether you would agree with that but received no reply. — Amity

Sorry, Amity, I forgot to reply to your quote but here is my answer:

Absolutely. You are right in the fact that seppuku doesn't survive through the centuries. It is another way of suicide and is seen pretty among Japanese society (well, in the Western culture too indeed).
But I only wanted to share my opinion of how interesting it was in Middle Age Japan the way of samurais acted in terms of loyalty, honour, righteousness, etc... whenever one samurai didn't accomplish any of these requirements he decided to commit seppuku because it was more painful the dishonour than killing oneself.
Nevertheless, it is true that the period of samurai times was so much different from nowadays. They were used to clan wars and a lot of blood. We evolved in to a complex society where we resolve the disputes with words and debates (a new habit which was born during the XIX century...?

Yet, it is so drastic seppuku act, we should never forget it. It is an important piece of history that is pretty interesting to consider about. It was an Ancient Ritual and we have to respect it.

what would the point of a personal ritual be?

The search of a personal journey. I am agree that most of the rituals are social because that's the clue. But in the other hand I wanted to argue some examples where some rituals can be committed individually. Another example could be asceticism. This ritual may withdraw from the world for their practices, but typically adopt a frugal lifestyle, characterised by the renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, and also spend time fasting while concentrating on the practice of religion or reflection upon spiritual matters.
Ascetic lifestyle is associated particularly with monks, nuns, and fakirs in Abrahamic religions, and bhikkhus, munis, sannyasis, vairagis, goswamis, and yogis in Indian religion

Don't worry! It is ok, friend. I like your answer and I really appreciate the time you take to read my posts.
To be honest, I don't even know why I wrote "human morals" :lol: I guess it was a reflex action or something similar!

(BTW, why do you say "human" ... Are there morals other than human?) — Alkis Piskas

The title of the OP says "human morals" so I didn't want get off from the topic :yum:

To be honest, I personally think it needs to be learned. There is an important concept inside Buddhism that is called "moral merit" which means the way of learn how to act appropriately towards life and others. Once we have learned morality we are more connected to Nirvana world or we pick up good results from "Cosmic justice" as "good Karma" etc...
So yes I think Human Morals need to be taught and it is not inherent to us.

You mean seppuku can be committed alone. That I understood as obvious.
For the individual it is clearly and hopefully a one-off act; it is only a ritual in the socio-cultural sense.
I was looking at the broader framework; it is/was a Japanese Ritual and then some. — Amity

We are both agree in the same point then! :up: :100:

I am agree with you about kaishakunin. In most of the rituals this specific person helped the samurai to perform the ritual without pain. But kaishakunin would not be in all the rituals. They only appeared when the samurai asked for his help.
A good example is Oda Nobunaga. He committed seppuku in the loneliness when he perceived that his samurai clan was been destroying.

Even when such an act is performed, it's part of a socio-cultural code.
It is telling a story. In this case, the Japanese ritual is mainly about restoring honour for themselves and their families. But there are more aspects or approaches to explore... — Amity

Completely agree. But what I intended to argue is that seppuku doesn't need "cooperation" to be performed. It is not like... a Christmas dinner for example. Where is the clue of a Christmas dinner if you're alone in your house? (Or in a birthday party)
Well seppuku is different. The social-cultural code can be committed without the implications of others.

And to be clear, I think a ritual may necessarily be social in nature.

Not necessarily. Seppuku was a samurai ritual used when someone committed a big act of dishonour or disrespect. The act itself was accomplished in the pure loneliness. Most of the people found out what happened whenever they discovered the corpse.

"What motivates the neo-Luddite worldview?"

Staying out of the masses. If you really want to be yourself you need to prevent the use of big social media apps (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc...) where the critical thinking doesn't exist and those are filled by fake news or hate speech.
To be honest, I never heard of neo-Luddite until today. It looks so interesting. I will look forward on this topic.

Marriage ceremonies, graduation ceremonies, inauguration ceremonies, award ceremonies, funeral traditions, birthday and holiday rituals

All of these examples were always been religious rituals... (except award ceremonies, good example).

What about non-religious ‘rituals’? — I like sushi

True. But I don't know any example of them.