Pragmatic Idealism

Enrique

I thought this might be a good general topic for philosophical consideration. The following seems to be a simple enough expression of the human species' situation in relation to common sense idealism, but what do you guys think regarding its genuine practicality?

Prehistoric Homo sapiens on the cusp of civilization was from the perspective of ecological security a nearly ideal species, invulnerable to self-destructing, destroying its environment, or being driven to extinction by organic selection pressures, even though life could be hard and it was only a matter of time before a mass-extinction event like that which wiped out the dinosaurs again took place. With the advancement of culture, our ability to survive reached such a magnitude that we could do better than perennially act out our functional adaptations as an evolutionarily unassailable species; we could reconstruct the environment to suit our needs. But as our ecological and social circumstances radically transformed in both intended and incidental ways, new pressures took effect that our natures were not adapted for, and we have struggled both with and against each other ever since to tame, harness and exploit for our benefit the new dynamics of human life in globalizing civilization. We can undermine ecosystems on a planetary scale, we can annihilate ourselves with the invention of intelligent technology, we can potentially secure our way of life against natural cataclysms such as asteroid strikes and social cataclysms such as ruinous violence or the oppression that tends to stagnate cultural and technological progress. Our future is largely ours to control, but we have not yet achieved a self-control and theoretical understanding viable enough to optimize civilization in a peak mobilization, quality of life, and general prognosis for human individuals and their collectives.

Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable?

Valentinus

Good question. Our adaptability has lead to a crisis of stasis. The tools that have worked so far to extend control of resources now have their own inertia that now need correction.

Wayfarer

Our future is largely ours to control, but we have not yet achieved a self-control and theoretical understanding viable enough to optimize civilization in a peak mobilization, quality of life, and general prognosis for human individuals and their collectives. — Enrique

We lack a philosophical basis for that outlook. The world's elite have already decided that Earth as we know it is doomed, so are looking for ways to colonize space, 'the final frontier'. Which I think is a doomed quest; we have one and only one space vehicle capable of lasting millions of years and supporting billions, and that's Spaceship Earth. And she's dangerously over-heating and under-resourced for the demands we're putting on her. And I'm sure the dream of colonizing the solar system, let alone other solar systems, will never materialise.

So I'm afraid the Western capitalist economic and political system will have to be dramatically and indeed radically transformed to cope with what is coming. Value systems will need to be changed to encourage frugality, sustainability and re-use instead of flagrant over-consumption and waste. But the materialist culture of capitalism will be completely unable to deal with this, as it challenges its entire raison d'etre.

Brett

↪Enrique

Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable? — Enrique

“Black Friday shoppers spent $7.4 billion online, the second largest Internet shopping day ever, according to data compiled by Adobe Analytics.”

Not yet I guess.

Brett

↪Wayfarer

So I'm afraid the Western capitalist economic and political system will have to be dramatically and indeed radically transformed to cope with what is coming. — Wayfarer

It’s interesting how everyone keeps pointing to the targeting of the Western capitalist economy as the solution. China has a Communist government and operates in a global economy and produces more co2 than any other nation is the world. Is there a reason for this focus?

Valentinus

↪Brett

China is a Capitalist economy. The means of production needed to play a part in a global economy requires nothing less.

Brett

↪Valentinus

So to refer back to my question, why do posts always refer to a Western capitalist economy and political system, as if that’s all there is?

Enrique

↪Wayfarer

Value systems will need to be changed to encourage frugality, sustainability and re-use instead of flagrant over-consumption and waste. But the materialist culture of capitalism will be completely unable to deal with this, as it challenges its entire raison d'etre.

Maybe one aspect of the problem is that we don't have an adequate accounting of and consideration for human psychology. To profoundly revise the system, we have to motivate citizens, and to revise systems at the rapid paces required by advancing technology, citizens have to self-motivate. Modifying our own psyches, acting in contradiction to conventional compulsions, conditioning, and the expectations of our sub-cultures can be trauma. How do we make the necessary adjustments to intrinsic human psychology without dangerously destabilizing it as commercialist enculturation seems to prove very possible?

Seems that most can project a mindset with amazing facility, in the presence of incredible stresses, but adopting a mindset that critiques and changes itself, negating its own nature for the sake of progressing through a series of increasingly practical outlooks, no matter how simple these outlooks are to conceptualize, is extremely difficult.

But looking at the huge transitions that have occurred in only a single century, substantial progress has got to be possible. I think if we give everyone a decent quality of life that provides opportunities for real peace and leisure, individuals will reflect more, be more flexible, and society won't be so chained to extrinsic incentive. We seem to be going in the opposite direction. Maybe mindfulness practice can lead humans to reflect more on their own behaviors. But abuse and corruption always have the temporary leverage if humans let down their guard and turn inward. The inclination towards social entropy is strong.

NOS4A2

↪Brett

It’s interesting how everyone keeps pointing to the targeting of the Western capitalist economy as the solution. China has a Communist government and operates in a global economy and produces more co2 than any other nation is the world. Is there a reason for this focus?

Good question.
Socialist states and technocratic tinkering have been disastrous for the environment. Consider Chernobyl, the Aral Sea in the Soviet Union, pollution in China, or the desertification and pollution of Cuba.

I suspect there is little focus on socialist states for political reasons,

Wayfarer

How do we make the necessary adjustments to intrinsic human psychology without dangerously destabilizing it as commercialist enculturation seems to prove very possible? — Enrique

I think there are intrinsic contradictions in the European Enlightenment. Steve Pinker's latest book, Enlightenment Now! is about more thoroughly implementing the program of the Enlightenment through application of science, technology and rational principles. Bill Gates and numerous other luminaries said it was their favourite book of 2018. And I agree that the programs of universal education, economic rationalism, and so on, are an essential part of the equation. BUT, the Enlightenment also has a shadow side. And that is the abandonment of what is generally designated as 'the spiritual'. It is basically 'privatised' as a matter of individual conscience. This goes back to the sense that life is the product of chance (or, 'not-God'). This gives rise to the conviction that human life exists for no reason, or at any rate, whatever reason we can find for life is something we ourselves are responsible for, in a basically meaningless material cosmos. As long as that conviction holds sway, then nihilism can be the only logical view.

Enrique

↪Wayfarer

...the Enlightenment also has a shadow side. And that is the abandonment of what is generally designated as 'the spiritual'.

I agree that the spiritual aspect of existence is difficult to reconcile with idealized glorifications of supposedly rational thinking, and this daunting challenge has led many to pursue either reason or faith, as if mutually exclusive. I think both spirituality and rationality have always been closely tied to supportive, reliable community, and are equally impossible to sustain long-term without an environment that fosters close social connections. Human beings can unite around any kind of cause imaginable, the possibilities for accomplishment, improvement and combining ideas nearly limitless, so long as we learn to trust, accept, and work towards the experience of genuinely caring for or at least participating with co-citizens. All the Enlightenment ideals we can muster probably aren't going to help the human race if economic and political models, depersonalizing art forms, predatory presentation of fact, and the manufacturing of conflict continue to hinder or even splinter communities, though attempting to instill the basic capacity for rational thought is certainly a piece of the puzzle.

ovdtogt

Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable? — Enrique

I am of the opinion, if people didn't have something to struggle for we would lose the will to live. We have to have aspirations. I think one of the greatest challenges facing mankind would be boredom and loneliness and general nihilism.

ZhouBoTong

I am of the opinion, if people didn't have something to struggle for we would lose the will to live. — ovdtogt

I was about to say that ship has already sailed (in developed nations), but we still have ultra poor who are certainly struggling. However, for, let's say the top 60% of Americans (for example), any struggles really only exist because of their aspirations (and yes, children count as aspirations). Life is pretty easy if the only point is to live how you see fit (and you don't have a huge opposition to following rules that set rather minor limitations).

I think one of the greatest challenges facing mankind would be boredom and loneliness and general nihilism. — ovdtogt

If those are the ONLY problems, I would certainly take that deal (and I would happily come up with some very important holes for people to dig and fill-in if they really need a purpose).

And besides that, there will always be a struggle if we choose to seek one. Notice 2 examples of a post scarcity utopia: In Wall-E, the people become fat lazy nothings - just as you seem to fear; but in Star Trek they use their new found freedom to explore the stars (and, yes, get into a bunch of new wars). The freedom found in this scenario includes the freedom to struggle, to seek more. Now, most people "struggle" to make rent or to look prettier than the next person...that does not seem likely to inspire mankind toward great things.

ovdtogt

In Wall-E, the people become fat lazy nothings - just as you seem to fear; but in Star Trek they use their new found freedom to explore the stars (and, yes, get into a bunch of new wars). — ZhouBoTong

Wall-E is fiction and Startrek illusion. We are pretty much stuck on this ball of clay with 7 billion and rising and we'll have to deal with that. Elon Musk and any idiot that wants to can dream of colonizing Mars to face a life of misery, they have my blessing.
We will destroy civilization as we know it but the few survivors will build a nightmarish utopia filled with nihilism.

Metaphysician Undercover

We lack a philosophical basis for that outlook. The world's elite have already decided that Earth as we know it is doomed... — Wayfarer

There is a type of selfishness involved here. It's very difficult for some of us to understand this form of selfishness, and to do so requires that we dismiss the idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole. The idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is the illusion which makes selfishness incomprehensible. Selfishness is the reality though. Therefore we must dispel this idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole, as an idea which is detrimental to our endeavour to understand the reality of selfishness. We may replace this idea with the idea that each one of us ought to desire to be a part of a larger whole. Then selfishness, though it is apprehended as very real, is understood as immoral..

Pantagruel

The idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is the illusion which makes selfishness incomprehensible. Selfishness is the reality though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Selfishness is real, but so is the tendency to cooperative endeavour. Some individuals are more selfish, some are more cooperative. There is ample evidence for both. So your assertions about one being real and the other an illusion are false, to the extent that they do not reflect empirical facts.

ovdtogt

The idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is the illusion which makes selfishness incomprehensible. Selfishness is the reality though. — Metaphysician Undercover

As usual in these discussion we fail the see the duality of reality. Human character is both altruistic and egotistic simultaneously as the human body is both male and female. Everything is about balance. How far do you lean to the right of the left. Left and right are both part of the same continuum.

↪Pantagruel

Metaphysician Undercover

Selfishness is real, but so is the tendency to cooperative endeavour. Some individuals are more selfish, some are more cooperative. There is ample evidence for both. So your assertions about one being real and the other an illusion are false, to the extent that they do not reflect empirical facts. — Pantagruel

I didn't say that cooperation isn't real. I said the belief that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is not a true belief. What there is no evidence of, is the idea that cooperating with another person makes the two distinct individuals who cooperate into a unified whole. Therefore what is untrue, and is not reflective of "empirical fact", is the idea that a number of individual human beings could compose a unified whole.

Human character is both altruistic and egotistic simultaneously as the human body is both male and female. — ovdtogt

This is nonsense. An individual human body is not both male and female, it is one or the other. A human body is either male or it is female, it is not both.

Left and right are both part of the same continuum. — ovdtogt

This, as well, is nonsensical. Right and left refer to opposite directions from a given perspective. They are not both part of the same continuum because there is a necessary dividing point between them, which is the given perspective.

ovdtogt

This is nonsense. An individual human body is not both male and female, it is one or the other. A human body is either male or it is female, it is not both.

It is obvious you lack even the most basic knowledge of biology. Your ignorance is to vast to fathom.

ZhouBoTong

We will destroy civilization as we know it but the few survivors will build a nightmarish utopia filled with nihilism. — ovdtogt

Maybe we just need to introduce more people to the pleasures of nihilism (objective nihilism seems a fact, but subjectively we can choose any purpose we want). How am I harmed or hindered by acknowledging there are no objective "oughts"? I get that it is a problem for some, but it will be easy to invent "religions" that give those people purpose. How about "The Holy Hole Fillers"? A religion where they both literally and figuratively fill holes (I was thinking "in dirt", I just realized someone could take "hole filling" in a whole 'nother direction...I am fine with that religion too, haha).

Wayfarer

How am I harmed or hindered by acknowledging there are no objective "oughts"? — ZhouBoTong

By ultimately discovering that there are? 'Hell is truth, realised too late' ~ Anonymous.

ovdtogt

aybe we just need to introduce more people to the pleasures of nihilism — ZhouBoTong

The idea that you can find purpose in nihilism is as likely as being able to fill up a black hole.
Humans have throughout history struggled to survive. Our super charged brains have evolved to give us an evolutionary edge in this struggle for survival. The moment this struggle ceases to be necessary we will find ourselves in a void, an emptiness for which we are not psychologically or emotionally equipped to deal with.

Metaphysician Undercover

It is obvious you lack even the most basic knowledge of biology. Your ignorance is to vast to fathom. — ovdtogt

Show me a human body which is both male and female, and I will argue that it is neither. Let the vastness of my ignorance overwhelm you!

ovdtogt

How am I harmed or hindered by acknowledging there are no objective "oughts"? — ZhouBoTong

↪Wayfarer

Society is already being harmed by the acknowledgment that there are no objective 'oughts'. The objective 'oughts' is what makes 'members of society' from individuals.

ovdtogt

Show me a human body which is both male and female, and I will argue that it is neither. Let the vastness of my ignorance overwhelm you! — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you think a man has nipples? Why do you think a female has a small penis? Why do you think a man can grow breasts? Why do you think both men and woman have testosterone and estrogen hormones in their body?

ZhouBoTong

By ultimately discovering that there are? 'Hell is truth, realised too late' ~ Anonymous. — Wayfarer

haha, zing. Do you think could convince me, or are we talking a Pascal's Wager situation?

ZhouBoTong

Society is already being harmed by the acknowledgment that there are no objective 'oughts'. The objective 'oughts' is what makes 'members of society' from individuals. — ovdtogt

I could just as easily state that society is just emerging from millennia of harm caused by people believing in objective oughts. Objective oughts create blind followers instead of thinking individuals.

I don't believe anything quite as strong as what I just wrote here (one person could live a great life with objective oughts, while the next person might become a terrible person due to objective oughts)...but I think your statements would be very difficult to support well.

ovdtogt

Objective oughts create blind followers instead of thinking individuals. — ZhouBoTong

The problem is most people don't have the intellectual capacity to be anything by blind followers. Who are these people going to follow when all the leaders have become nihilistic hedonists? (a situation we almost already find ourselves in) Only the artists and scientists will be able to amuse themselves. All the philosophers will be nihilists by then.

Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you think a man has nipples? Why do you think a female has a small penis? Why do you think a man can grow breasts? Why do you think both men and woman have testosterone and estrogen hormones in their body? — ovdtogt

I don't see how that's relevant, you might as well be asking why males and females both have mouths and noses. If you want to start with something real, start with the y chromosome.

ovdtogt

I don't see how that's relevant, you might as well be asking why males and females both have mouths and noses. If you want to start with something real, start with the y chromosome. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't find what defines us sexually as being relevant? Why do you have nipples?

Metaphysician Undercover

↪ovdtogt

How could nipples define us sexually when both men and women have nipples? I don't know why I have nipples, nor do I know why I have fingers or toes.

Pragmatic Idealism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions