What is the point of surviving eternally?Survival without an afterlife is temporary Religions are about eternal survival not just surviving so you can reproduce. — Andrew4Handel
My parents don't ask me to pray to them, nor tell me that my happiness is tied to doing everything they say.But you are indebted to your parents in the same way. You only exist because of them. being created doesn't mean you owe a debt. I have argued this in my "No consent" thread. — Andrew4Handel
Theres more to procreating than heterosexual sex. The offspring need to make it to the age of being able to procreate themselves and gays adopting unwanted children are part ofv the solution. Not everyone gets to mate, but every member of the social group shares the same genes, and participates in ensuring genes gets passed down to the next generation.I am referring to a deflationary account of human attributes as ultimately coercive to encourage reproduction. My nihilism doesn't come from Evolution but it is exacerbated by it.
I highlighted it concerning the search for an evo explanation of homosexuality. I think it is insidious to make peoples attribute subservient to brute survival/reproductive success. — Andrew4Handel
The Nazi and eugenicist interpretation of evolution was that we could actively cull the weak and aid evolution. Natural selection is open to this interpretation if it is seen as improving fitness. So for example it is not in our interest to prop up people with poor genes leading to sickness because it could condemn our species as a whole. For instance we advise against interbreeding because it has been shown to cause disabilities. So I don't think that negative applications of evolution are irrational. The idea we should or could transcend evolution is idealistic. It would only be possible to a non determinist who considered human behaviour flexible enough and spandrel like to transcend innate traits. — Andrew4Handel
What is the point of surviving eternally? — Harry Hindu
My parents don't ask me to pray to them, nor tell me that my happiness is tied to doing everything they say. — Harry Hindu
.continuing the existence of the species, leaving a mark in the world, ensuring that some part of you continues to exist after you die, etc., — Harry Hindu
Evolutionary psychologists are liable to over-emphasise evolution, and people with a scientific cast of mind are inclined to re-work interesting stuff we do into dreary scientific-sounding generalisations. — mcdoodle
culture in the USA faces a bigger threat from the religious/populist movement against the theory of evolution, than it does from the likes of E O Wilson. — mcdoodle
All that exists after a parent dies is copies of some of their genes. — Andrew4Handel
For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate.What is the point of surviving at all? — Andrew4Handel
For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate. — Harry Hindu
No, we weren't talking about what YOU meant by MY post. What I meant when I typed my post is that the difference between my parents and God is that my parents don't make do anything under threat of eternal torture, and don't hold my happiness over my head if I don't obey their every word.We were talking about creation and I am pointing out your parents created you. What is the difference between your parents creating you and a god creating you? — Andrew4Handel
No you are contradicting yourself. Remember when you said this:Parents often create their children for a reason because humans have desires and reasoning. — Andrew4Handel
Do we mindlessly procreate, or do we procreate for a reason? I'm a parent and the reasons I procreated was to share something special with my mate, to leave a legacy behind when I die, and to experience being a father and the love of my children.I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel
My parents didn't have me so that they could indoctrinate me. I was a "mistake", as they were young, and their marriage didn't last. So, in a way, my coming into the world wasn't planned, or wasn't expected. I was the result of two teenagers following their physical urges. Many, but not everyone, is born this way. Some, like my daughter, were planned.People have children for dubious reasons. My parents spent my entire childhood indoctrinating me into religion. There is a difference between an unthinking species reproducing without motives and humans who can have motives. A lot of cultures have expected children to revere their parents and they have even being worshipped. I don't thinking taking gods out of the picture frees you from being created with dubious motives. — Andrew4Handel
Well, I am. I'm attacking the one and only creator - the creator of my ancient ancestors that begat all the rest. If God didn't create anything, then we wouldn't be here discussing who created who in the first place.You seem to be attacking a narrow notion of a creator rather than the general concept. A parents with benevolent motives (are there any?) is more likely to help a child than a dogmatic parent. — Andrew4Handel
No it doesn't. Some of my childhood was bad. When my parents divorced, I felt like my father didn't want me. They used me as a tool against each other, too, but there were good times as well. I had some great friends growing up and will always remember those good times, that seems to outweigh the bad.My experience of a lack of meaning probably derives from my upbringing. Having children for incoherent or bad reasons undermines meaning. I think meaning is often just derived from benevolent relationships. Anyone can reject their parents reasons for having them. — Andrew4Handel
Genes are carried by every living organism, not just homo sapiens sapiens. So no, it can't be anthropomorphic.However, the second part appears to be anthropomorphism. — Rich
Well, saying it like that would be anthropomorphic. Genes don't have desires. They just do what they do as a result of natural selection. Our desires, though, are a result of natural selection, too. — Harry Hindu
Do we mindlessly procreate, or do we procreate for a reason? — Harry Hindu
Just because my parents didn't have me for the same reasons I had my kids, doesn't mean that I don't have meaning, or that life is meaningless. I created my own purpose in life. — Harry Hindu
Explain the treatment of homosexuality then.
Theorists are attempting to explain homosexuality as having adaptive advantage. They are not happy with it just being a spandrel. — Andrew4Handel
What purpose could we be said to have? In a trivial sense someone can claim watching paint dry is their purpose. But this kind of invented purpose lacks profundity and also it can be given a deflationary evolutionary explanation. — Andrew4Handel
The problem with evolution on some interpretations is that it reduces or deflates human claims. For example you could help an elderly person cross the road with genuine kindness and altruism but that disposition is seen as primarily in service of the survival of the genes. — Andrew4Handel
So if something is good for our species, it cannot also be good in itself? How do you make that leap of logic? That's like saying that we can't eat food because it tastes good, because we all know that we eat food because it nourishes us. Both can be true. They are not mutually exclusive. — Reformed Nihilist
I agree that helping others is an independent good, the problem is that it is subservient to mindless.
reproduction. — Andrew4Handel
As an antinatalist I feel a sense of futility when helping people. For instance the population of Ethiopia has tripled since the 1980's and Famine aid. Malnutrition related disease are a big problem there. — Andrew4Handel
Empathy and helping people is not an unmitigated good. The same instincts have been posited to play a role in war and prejudice.
If there is no over riding point then I don't see the point in anything, it is just a set of distractions. I didn't used to see life as meaningless as a child for some reason. I thought it was going somewhere. I thought it had a purpose. I am hoping it turns out to have a meaning. — Andrew4Handel
My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. — Reformed Nihilist
That's exactly the kind of thinking that is at issue. It is the attempt to 'explain' the history of philosophy and religion in terms of adaptive necessity. — Wayfarer
It is just the kind of thing that fills books by Dennett and Dawkins. — Wayfarer
But where do you find those books? Why, in the 'philosophy' section of popular bookstores, snuggled alongside the Family Bible and Deepak Chopra. But unlike them, they claim that 'philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say'. But, why do they not fall by the same criteria? If what they are saying is correct, their authors are simply chimps standing on a mound of dirt, making 'boo' noises. After all, that's what they say philosophy is. — Wayfarer
Natural selection is a process, not a concept. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a concept.As long as you are using the concept of desire it has to be emanating from somewhere. Are you suggesting it is emanating from the gene (a physical entity) or from natural selection (a concept)? If you are suggesting it is emanating from the gene, then that would be anthropomorphism. If you are saying it is from natural selection, then you would be using anthropomorphism on a concept. — Rich
Desires are natural inclinations. It's really quite simple, (which is the magic of the theory - the simplicity). Any organism that doesn't procreate leaves no offspring. If your inclination is to not procreate, then there won't be any descendants that also have the natural inclination to not procreate. Those species that exist, and are successful at existing within an environment for many generations are those that procreate. Any species that doesn't procreate who is competing for the same resources as those that do, will lose out and won't exist long enough to leave a mark in the fossil record or even be noticed by humans millions of years later to be classified.Any type if anthropomorphism begs the question of why would a concept such natural selection create a condition of desire of any sort much less procreation. It would seem like the whole theory it's based upon some feeling of some individuals that procreation is natural, leading of course to homophobia and other related sins similar to religious beliefs. — Rich
Anything I say that somehow reminds someone of either Dennett or Dawkins (or both simultaneously), — Reformed Nihilist
You use quotes around the sentence "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". Who are you quoting? Where do they claim that? Are you sure that's really either one of their positions? Seeing as though Daniel Dennett is a writer of philosophy books, I suspect you're mistaken. — Reformed Nihilist
Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher — Wikipedia
βit eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.β
Genes don't even care about their survival. They don't even possess knowledge. Genes just do what they do. We can have many reasons for doing the things we do, but it all narrows down to survival in the natural and social environment. We can either possess the knowledge for the reasons we do the things we do, or delude ourselves into thinking that the things we do and what we are are really "special" to the point that scientific theories can never explain them.What I said is that evolution deflates the reasons we give for reproducing. What ever reason you have for having children by having children you are just carrying on the cycle of reproduction. To carry on reproducing is doing what our genes allegedly "want" us to do. Our genes don't care about our survival but their survival (see Dawkins) I am not defending this view but saying that evolution can easily give a deflationary account of anything — Andrew4Handel
Sure, we can control our reproduction. After our third child, I had a vasectomy. I did so, because having kids costs money, and I wanted the children we did have to have more than what we could have given them if we had more kids. Other species are no different. When resources are low, certain organisms won't procreate. It's logical as having kids with no resources is equivalent to not having them at all because it is likely they won't survive.I think the problem with humans is they can control their reproduction and reason about it, but choose not to. Any reproduction that is not done on a coherent basis is mindless. — Andrew4Handel
One of the problems for me is my parents made me believe Christianity was absolutely true (by intimidation among other things) Abandoning it lead to a loss of meaning.
For example I had numerous rules like I couldn't watch TV, listen to the radio, shop on sunday and so on. I left due to the horrible atmosphere but it was traumatic and what I discovered was that no rules and no morality could be justified. Before I was told to do X because God said so..
If God does not exist and isn't a moral authority there are no moral facts or moral authority.. That lead me to nihilism. Having to abandoned one extensive belief system made me highly skeptical and demanding better justifications for things.
But nihilism and a sense of futility is a terrible experience. I don't like to see it endorsed as a scientific theory. If science is saying life is pointless and meaningless then we certainly should not reproduce.
i have issues with the idea of making your own meaning but that would constitute a whole new thread" — Andrew4Handel
Not 'anything you say' - the specific thing you said. Namely, that 'the search for meaning' is an evolved trait. Don't make statements like:' What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?' and then protest because someone jumps on it. — Wayfarer
Dennett is probably among the best-known public intellectuals in the US. And, it is a fact that what he understands as philosophy, undermines or tends to dissolve anything that was previously understood as 'philosophy'. That was the central message of one of his books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he compares evolutionary biology to a 'universal acid': — Wayfarer
When did I say the search for meaning was an evolved trait? — Reformed Nihilist
What makes you think that life is supposed to have an objective purpose? My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. — Reformed Nihilist
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 β just fascinating conversations.