And it is quite true that science has a bad habit of viewing humanity as merely some insignificant material accident - a meaningless blip in a vast cosmos — apokrisis
No lump of matter in the known universe is more complexly structured that the nervous system of the average human. — apokrisis
But science can see both how humans are completely insignificant and also completely special - and why these two things are not incompatible but just two slants on the one, four causes and Aristotelean, story. — apokrisis
evolution has made man once again the center of the universe, not spatially, not metaphysically, but in Teilhard’s word, “structurally.”
“Man is the hub of the universe,” “the structural key to the universe.
But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God. — T Clark
There is a lot of the universe we don't know. If there is life elsewhere, and I would put my money on "yes," I can't see any reason it might not also rise to that level. — T Clark
This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. — T Clark
This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. We are not important to anything but ourselves, and that's enough. That's the way it should be. — T Clark
I like the Sumerian story that we are special to the earth because we were created by a goddess to help the river stay in its banks, so it does not flood and kill plants. I believe others also saw it as our purpose to take good care of the earth. We have the ability to create Eden but I don't think Eden looks like New York city.
Or there is Chardin's notion that God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We have a pool of consciousness that has grown a lot since the beginning of man. That consciousness is not physical yet it strongly affects our lives. — Athena
...there is an unsettling gulf between widely accepted assumptions surrounding instinct and the actual science available to explain it.
I like those kinds of stories too. I don't see them as in conflict with the ideas I expressed. Well, maybe they are or seem to be, but the sign of a philosopher is to be able to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at one time. — T Clark
The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.
I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.
Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.
What do you think? — chiknsld
Is more concerned with technological correctness.Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar
Whereas,
Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar
Is more concerned with technological correctness. — Athena
genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years! — Wayfarer
I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know. — Athena
I am human and I am a humanist, by which I mean we created human value and meaning. That's a good thing. I love humanity. I feel a connection with my fellow humans. But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God. I am not a theist. — T Clark
I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA). — Agent Smith
-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"?? — Nickolasgaspar
Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :) — chiknsld
First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement. — Nickolasgaspar
Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?
— Athena
As I'm sure you know, that idea has a long history. — T Clark
-Well to answer that you will need to define what you mean by that term."First of all" I followed the replies and got back to the above post. You do not think that statement is a concern with technological correctness? — Athena
-You keep making no sense in relation to my point...And that is very close to "political correctness" and I have some concerns about how all this correctness is manifested. Perhaps I should not make an issue out of this but it seems a little dangerous. — Athena
No, I do not know that. — Athena
This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title. — Wayfarer
Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts. It is generally associated with idealism and was coined by Carl Jung. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life.[1] Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He believed that the concept of the collective unconscious helps to explain why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. He argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious. — Wikipedia
Sorry, Wayfarer, I keep referring to this post. — T Clark
I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA). — Agent Smith
What would there to be gained by decoding it? Aren't we already embodiments of it? Doesn't 'what we are' exemplify 'what it means'? — Wayfarer
What would there to be gained by decoding it? Aren't we already embodiments of it? Doesn't 'what we are' exemplify 'what it means'? — Wayfarer
It probably wouldn't be ethical — Agent Smith
Certainly wouldn't. How do you think the lucky guy would feel 'hey we've brought you back to life, but all your relatives died a million years ago'. — Wayfarer
Certainly wouldn't. How do you think the lucky guy would feel 'hey we've brought you back to life, but all your relatives died a million years ago. Let us know if you need anything.' — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.