Proper critique first requires understanding that which is being critiqued. — creativesoul

You're often very dismissive of proper critique. You seem more interested in recognition and in promoting your muddled and highly repetitive thinking. It actually resembles some sort of mental disorder.

No one understands your ingenious contributions to philosophy, right? Wrong.

I offer no apology for expressing this, and you can think that I'm an asshole or a dick for doing so. You can call me a troll, a toxic fool, or a sociopath. It's water off a duck's back.

"Gasp! You can't say that! No! You can't do that!" - but I question such a value. Sometimes I just think, "No, fuck that". — S

:up:

Look how far you have to go to explain how society is a natural phenomenon. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean, "look how far you have to go"? All you need to do is look and see with your own eyes that human beings are part of reality as much as everything else living or non-living. We all share reality and are all part of this same reality. How else do you explain our causal influence upon each other, or even communicate?

Even when I was young and indoctrinated with religion to believe that humans were specially created and seperate from nature, I noticed the similarities between humans and other animals and wondered why the similarities existed if we were seperate from, or not, animal. So my empirical information ended up overcoming my social conditioning. As I searched for answers I found the theory of natural selection to be the best explanation for our existence and implies that human beings are the outcome of natural processes.

The only question is if this mental experience is the result of a sensory interaction with the rest of the world (realism)(I don't like to use the incoherent external vs. internal distinction) including other humans, or not (solipsism). Infants seemed to inexorably and logically arrive at the conclusion of realism with the acquisition of "object permanence", where they understand that mom still exists even we she's out of sight. Do you exist when I'm not reading your posts? Are you a human being that posts their ideas on an internet forum, or an internet post that only exists when I read it?

I can't even say that seeing is a natural phenomenon because that is essentially a tautology, and we all know how stupid tautologies are. — Merkwurdichliebe

Would you prefer the term "real"? "Natural" and "real" and synonyms to me. Are you real? Is your internet post real? Is your internet post part of reality such that anyone that looks in the right place will find it?

Not my opinion — Banno

Is it your opinion that that is not your opinion? Is it opinions all the way down? How do you avoid an infinite regress of opinions when ultimately you have to admit that something is happening and why would it appear like a shared world populated with living and non living objects located relative to the senses if it's not? I think therefore I am? Is it an opinion or fact that Banno exists - either as something that thinks, or are you just an internet post that exists when I read it? Does reading your post exhaust all there is to know about Banno? If not, where do I look to find out more about Banno?

How do you explain communcation if we interpret strings of scribbles differently, which includes the definitions? How can you even explain any similarities in our opinions, or understanding of scribbles, if everything is opinions, or subjective?

Are environmental scientists proposing opinions or facts when they claim that the Earth is undergoing climate change? How do you determine the strength of the scientists opinions vs. climate change deniers? What reasons would you argue for one position or another? If you are using scientific data, how do you know that you are interpreting it correctly, after all it would just be your opinion of another's opinion.

Would you prefer the term "real"? "Natural" and "real" and synonyms to me. Are you real? Is your internet post real? Is your internet post part of reality such that anyone that looks in the right place will find it? — Harry Hindu

I have more points to address, but time is limited for now. . .

But I might dispute that the real and natural are synonymous. Consider that the unnatural can also be real (let's call it the synthetic). And indeed I am real, the posts are real, and they likely have a phenomenal reality beyond my immediacy. But, regardless of our mode of reality, I am still a mixture of the natural and synthetic, and all my posts are entirely synthetic.

Thus, I would argue: that society is a synthetic construct. And the human being, as such, is a natural phenomenon.

I am arguing from the perspective of the individual human being. You are arguing from the perspective that the individual human being cannot be isolated from the collective, and the collective of humans naturally forms a society. So you have to go further than I do to explain how it's natural. But it's not wrong.

There is a coherent conceptual distinction between natural and artificial. The latter is usually taken to refer to phenomena which are produced by human artifice.

Human society could be seen to be the interactive elaboration of human artifice, and might be considered to be an artificial phenomenon on that account. But is human artifice itself not a natural phenomenon?

I would say that not only can the the individual human being not be "isolated" from the "collective", but the collective cannot be isolated from nature; although it can obviously be useful for developing certain lines of thought to make the distinction between what we think of as natural and what we think of as artificial. Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say.

It's water off a duck's back. — S

Polluted water off a toxic duck's back you mean? :joke:

Polluted water off a toxic duck's back you mean? :joke: — Janus

Oh, duck off. :grin:

I already have!

Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus

The first axiom of philosophy: γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Obviously you don't mean in the "biblical" sense? :joke:

well. Uh...

Uh...indeed!

... I just finished knowing myself, now I have to clean up

There is a coherent conceptual distinction between natural and artificial. The latter is usually taken to refer to phenomena which are produced by human artifice.

Human society could be seen to be the interactive elaboration of human artifice, and might be considered to be an artificial phenomenon on that account. — Janus

That's my take. Are humans not able to transcend nature?

I would say that not only can the the individual human being not be "isolated" from the "collective", but the collective cannot be isolated from nature; although it can obviously be useful for developing certain lines of thought to make the distinction between what we think of as natural and what we think of as artificial. Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus

To be clear, I was talking to mr. Harry in terms of degrees of nature, and that society as a natural phenomenon is not incorrect, but it is a lesser degree of natural than the individual.

It's good that you posited that it is impossible to isolate the individual from the collective. But then that brings forward thar classic philosophical debate over which is primary: the individual or collective.

Suppose objectivity is a collectively determined phenomenon, and that the natural sciences are the best tool for determining what is acceptable as fact. What condiderations can we draw from this?

A common enough human circumstance, no doubt!

That's my take. Are humans not able to transcend nature? — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean by "transcend nature"?

To be clear, I was talking to mr. Harry in terms of degrees of nature, and that society as a natural phenomenon is not incorrect, but it is a lesser degree of natural than the individual.

It's good that you posited that it is impossible to isolate the individual from the collective. But then that brings forward thar classic philosophical debate over which is primary: the individual or collective.

Suppose objectivity is a collectively determined phenomenon, and that the natural sciences are the best tool for determining what is acceptable as fact. What condiderations can we draw from this? — Merkwurdichliebe

OK, I think I can see where you are going with this. I guess it depends on perspective; I can think of ways of looking at it that would make society, the collective, look more like a natural phenomenon than the individual.

As to which is "primary", the individual or the collective, I'm not convinced that is an entirely coherent question, although from particular perspectives for particular purposes we might answer it one way or the other. I'd say the individual and the collective are co-arising, co-dependent and co-determining, that neither are primary,

I agree that science and common empirical observation are the "best (only?) tools for determining facts. There are no properly determinable aesthetic or moral facts, but I do think there are more or less plausible ways of thinking about aesthetic and moral phenomena. We can perhaps tick all the boxes in the domains of science and common empirical observation, but I think the very idea of ticking all the boxes in the domains of aesthetic and ethical judgement is a kind of category error.

What do you mean by "transcend nature"? — Janus

Remember I consider the human part to be natural. So...I am just making a connection between technology as human artifice, and the technological trend towards transhumanism. So, I conclude that the degree of sophistication of human technology can exempt the human from the necessity of nature, whereas nothing else in nature seems capable of accomplishing that.

OK, I see now you are speaking about technological transcendence of nature. Personally, I think that is a misguided pipe-dream. The whole of technology relies upon nature being the way it is, and the industrial revolution would have been impossible without fossil fuels. The future development of technology, if it is to grow exponentially as it has in the last three hundred years, will depend on cheap energy, and it certainly doesn't look as if anything is on the horizon that will be able to supplant dwindling and ever more expensive fossil fuels in time to "keep the party going".

If we can't find a substitute cheap energy source pretty soon, then prosperity and technological progress will begin to falter, slow way down, and we could very well be looking at global economic collapse much sooner than we care to imagine. Even if we do, by some seeming miracle, find a replacement for fossil fuels, that will only be on account of exploiting nature in some other way, which may or may not turn out to be sustainable.

And all of that is presuming that some effect(s) of anthropogenic global warming does not catastrophically fuck up all our plans. Human life is the most complex natural system we know of, and with greater complexity comes greater interconnection and greater fragility. So much for our much vaunted "transcendence of nature"!

You may or may not have gathered from what I have said here that I am no "scientist" (in the sense of 'proponent of scientism'). :wink:

the industrial revolution would have been impossible without fossil fuels — Janus

But the natural state of fossil fuel is deep underground, extraction removes it from it's natural condition. Or do you say that it's not a fossil fuel until it is powering motors? Of course that would necessitate that a motor is a natural phenomenon too.

Even if we do, by some seeming miracle, find a replacement for fossil fuels, that will only be on account of exploiting nature in some other way, which may or may not turn out to be sustainable. So, much for our much vaunted "transcendence of nature"!

You may or may not have gathered from what I have said here that I am no "scientist" (in the sense of 'proponent of scientism'). :wink: — Janus

Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite on earth. I'm inclined to agree that aptly describes the inherent nature of the human collective. And that is why I hold the individual to be primary.
Only as an individual can one avert assimilation by the collective nature. Becoming an individual, rather than a number in a crowd, is the only possibility for redemption.

As I said, of course we can think of human inventions like internal combustion engines as being "non-natural", but they are really just ways of exploiting the nature of nature, so to speak. the same goes for mining and the extraction techniques that enable us to get fossil fuels out of the ground.

Fossil fuels are the result, as know doubt you already know, of the transformation of deposited animal and plant remains. getting it out of the ground, refining it and burning it are further natural (in the sense of 'in accordance with so-called natural laws') transformations. We use resources just as any other animal does. It is also natural for top predators,which is what we arguably are, to indiscriminately use up all their resources if nothing stands in the way of doing so, which inevitably results in catastrophic collapse and dwindling of their numbers.

The only way I can see that it could be arguable that we "transcend nature" is that our possession of language allows us to be reflectively aware of the potential dangers of following our instincts, but it's not looking like that is going to help us out of the pickle we are in, because at the moment it is mostly "business as usual" sustained by copious denial and empty rationalization.

Look what they've done to my thread, Ma...

Hu?

Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite in on earth. I'm inclined to agree that aptly describes the inherent nature of human collective. And that is why I hold the individual to be primary.
Only as an individual can one avert assimilation by the collective nature. Becoming an individual, rather than a number in a crowd, is the only possibility for redemption. — Merkwurdichliebe

I totally agree with you on that: I certainly don't advocate following the mob. We can look after our own lives and position ourselves as best we are able to weather the coming storm.

What would happen if we didn't? Will we have solved half of the problem? — S

Point is, there isn't a problem to solve. So the more one tries to solve it, the further one gets from the answer... so to speak.

Give us some credit, we are talking about the individual and the collective. Just consider those as analogues to subject and object

Well, unfortunately or fortunately its moved on to more important matters than trying to pin down the semantics of the distinction between subject and object, which is really of little consequence, an unnecessary distraction, in relation to the larger picture of what is happening to humanity.

Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite in on earth. — Merkwurdichliebe

I should add that I don't see humanity in that anti-humanist way, I see us as an apex predator out of control, kind of like a "pig in shit".

Give us some credit, we are talking about the individual and the collective. Just consider those as analogues to subject and object — Merkwurdichliebe

But they are not.

It's only here, among 'philosophers', where I am 'attempting to dictate language'. But consider that you've been using language wrong, from the very beginning. — StreetlightX

And you keep doing it.

Oh, well, the mouth of the bottle is over there. Have fun.