What the "bo" will tell you is that, for the practical purposes of reproduction, the gender rainbow is reduced down to three colors : 1. male, 2. female, 3. other. Apparently, they have no religious or political scruples about "other", which is not practical, but just for funsies. Perhaps the fun aspect is not an evolutionary adaptation, but just a "spandrel". — Gnomon
Yes. Conservative personalities are not all the same, but they generally tend to be uncomfortable with change & complexity, preferring predictability & simplicity. Yet when translated into political or religious positions, the variety of personal expressions gets compressed into a few black & white creedal beliefs. And likewise for Liberals.I believe that recourse to human nature is conservative, irrespective of the fact that this link can sometimes be broken. — David Mo
What is typical of this situation is that conservatives seem to make a statement of fact, but in reality it is a value judgment.
It's that they start with the statement of fact (something like "human nature is X, Y, Z") and from there they're able to evaluate political or moral systems. If one of these systems flies in the face of human nature it is dismissed. — BitconnectCarlos
But surely one of the most obvious facts about human nature is that humans have the propensity for devising moral and political systems that fail because of the enormous variability of human nature?Because I believe that there are certain facts about human nature and if a system ignores or directly contradicts these facts it is bound to fail. — BitconnectCarlos
Insightful observation! Scientific Facts are supposed to be value neutral, whereas the application of those "facts" as "oughts" is a value judgment based on a particular worldview. That's true of both Conservatives and LIberals though. The judgments may be logical, but the worldviews might be prejudiced by limited experience or by indoctrination. So what ought-to-be will vary depending on innate or received values.What is typical of this situation is that conservatives seem to make a statement of fact, but in reality it is a value judgment. — David Mo
We can start with "men are not angels." Well, besides Kim Jung Un obviously. — BitconnectCarlos
That's true of both Conservatives and LIberals though. — Gnomon
After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious. — Gnomon
Adorno's account of nihilism rests, in large part, on his understanding of reason and of how modern societies have come to conceive of legitimate knowledge. He argues that morality has fallen victim to the distinction drawn between objective and subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge consists of empirically verifiable 'facts' about material phenomena, whereas subjective knowledge consists of all that remains, including such things as evaluative and normative statements about the world. On this view, a statement such as 'I am sitting at a desk as I write this essay' is of a different category to the statement 'abortion is morally wrong'. The first statement is amenable to empirical verification, whereas the latter is an expression of a personal, subjective belief. Adorno argues that moral beliefs and moral reasoning have been confined to the sphere of subjective knowledge. He argues that, under the force of the instrumentalization of reason and positivism, we have come to conceive of the only meaningfully existing entities as empirically verifiable facts: statements on the structure and content of reality. Moral values and beliefs, in contrast, are denied such a status. Morality is thereby conceived of as inherently prejudicial in character so that, for example, there appears to be no way in which one can objectively and rationally resolve disputes between conflicting substantive moral beliefs and values. 1.
Yes. The ancient Greek philosophers observed that humans were superior in some way to animals, but obviously not in physical attributes. Since all autonomous creatures were presumed to be animated by Spirit, they concluded that metaphysical Soul (Reason) was the defining characteristic of humanity. In the pre-scientific era, that "fact" was probably not even debatable. But today, closer scientific observations, from a Darwinian perspective, have revealed that animals (e. g. chimps & porpoises) are capable of reasoning that is much closer to human capacities. Hence, the gap has been narrowed; which has raised some ethical questions that were not taken seriously in the past.So, the point is, the questions around 'essentialism' and whether or not there is something which is essentially human, are themes which figure in both conservative and radical analyses of late modernity. — Wayfarer
OK. But that kind of thing is very abstract. You won't get precise rules out of them. Besides, they don't need to respond to a human nature, but could be the result of habits or customs. What is your method of distinguishing one thing (nature) from another (culture)?
today, closer scientific observations, from a Darwinian perspective, have revealed that animals (e. g. chimps & porpoises) are capable of reasoning that is much closer to human capacities — Gnomon
So, what is it to be a person? (Humanity).
I doubt we can find a single answer. — David Mo
today, closer scientific observations, from a Darwinian perspective, have revealed that animals (e. g. chimps & porpoises) are capable of reasoning that is much closer to human capacities
— Gnomon
This is nonsense — Wayfarer
Are you saying that Reason is a divine "endowment" and not an evolutionary development? The "nonsense" statement said that "animals are capable of reasoning that is much closer [but not equal] to human capacities". Before Darwin, most philosophers assumed that there was an unbridgeable gap between animal minds and human Reason. So the story goes, God must have bestowed rational souls only upon the descendants of Adam --- hence Essentialism.This is nonsense. The motivation for it is to provide humans with an excuse not to recognise what the endowment of reason amounts to. It arises from a fear of being human. And it's not a matter of 'valuing tradition and religion'. By virtue of reason and language, humans are able to comprehend ideas and principles that no animal will ever understand, the fact that chimps use communication devices and crows can count to five notwithstanding. And mankind can see beyond reason, into the domain of transcendent reality. — Wayfarer
Interestingly, Buddhists are generally very kind and humane to animals, but being reborn into the animal realm, which is said to be extremely common, is an enormous misfortune, because animals are stupid and so can't understand the Buddhist teaching leading to liberation. — Wayfarer
science itself can provide no foundation for values. — Wayfarer
just for funsies — Gnomon
Are you saying that Reason is a divine "endowment" and not an evolutionary development? — Gnomon
But even the otherwise unlikely emergence of Life & Mind can be understood as inevitable if evolution is an intentional program of En-formation via Cause & Effect dating back to a Rational First Cause. In that sense, I can agree that human reason is an endowment that matured only after billions of years from the initial investment (evolution). — Gnomon
No. The Enformationism worldview does not imply predestination or essentialism. Instead, it views evolution as Ententional*1 in the sense of modern Evolutionary Programming (EP)*2, in which the final outcome is unknown. EP is a learning process, not a defining act. The only essence of evolved creatures is EnFormAction*3, which is essentially Creative Energy, which causes change in a certain direction. The entention is to reach a future state (godlike??), but the specific paths, and intermediate states, are left to chance, yet guided by specified parameters (normative natural laws) and initial conditions (the setup).If its an "intentional program" then "essentialism" is the only option, nothing is really genuinely the result of constructive (creative) evolution but rather an inevitable and pre-programmed consequence of the original "idea" — Siti
Can you refer me to the "pagan philosophy" that argued for a transcendent rational soul on "impeccable rational grounds"? Or will you give me your own synopsis of how transcendent Reason is related to immanent material Reality?But I am firmly of the view that reason transcends any Darwinian account, as it is something more than, and other than, an evolutionary adaptation (such as tooths, claws, feathers). — 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.