It's interesting that you mention Pinker, because his overall thesis is simply that the world is getting better, and that this is quantifiable — 013zen

I am not of the opinion that the world is not getting better. I am of the opinion that if we are not as advanced as we think we are. It could be much better than it is, e.g., Gaza, Ukraine, Uyghurs in China, Pakistan, India, etc. I have no problem with all that Pinker states except that we still have all of the human characteristics that have been with us throughout our history, i.e., poverty, war, starvation, etc.

With that being said, I don't think anyone is willing to admit that we couldn't perhaps do better in a number of areas, but that might always be true. — 013zen

It will always be true. Jim Jeffries always says, "We can all do better." But that is not happening..

there will always be disparages among the population. Lessening that is obviously the goal, and its one we seem to be moving towards. — 013zen

Jesus said there will always be poor. Lessoning that is a utilitarian goal, however when greed snd exploitation is the modus operandi, instead of science, I maintain my pessimistic position. Why didn't the oil companies get into alternative fuel? Why didn't Tesla start with hybrid cars that recharged their own batteries instead of cars that have limited charging stations. I agree we have the potential, but...

Remember, evolution takes time. — 013zen

I think you are confusing evolution of ideas with biological evolution. Individual people 'evolve' and ideas 'evolve' but biological evolution works on populations not individuals. Modern humans have not evolved in the biological since. We have adapted and benefited from nutrition, vaccines, etc., but we have not evolved biologically. We have no new part of the brain popped out to help us deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, or other natural problems that threaten our geopolitical status quo.

AT NO LEVEL in this advance is the balance or morality ever abandoned (or can be). — Chet Hawkins

From this statement, I think you are saying that morality is a balance, not morality in a religious sense, perhaps in the sense of Heraclitus, or in a Daoist sense. Am I understanding correctly? I can agree with that on our level of resolution.

on the surface of things, you see the immoral dynamic. — Chet Hawkins

This goes with the above, but you are talking about people now. I don't think what you are talking about has changed in human nature. I think you could go to ancient writers and find the same complaint.

This flies directly in the face of all polarized foolishness like literally almost everything we see on the news today. — Chet Hawkins

It is in our nature to be tribal and technology makes it so much more efficient. The beginning of the US Constitution was not a two party system, but it developed immediately after Washington left the presidency, because Washington seemed to be the only thing they could agree on.

Agreed and yet ... not relevant. Do opinions matter to truth? — Chet Hawkins

Opinions are not truth, and Xenophanes did not think so, in fact his statement was deriding opinion. However, today we see opinion polls influencing everything. Remember technology makes it so more efficient..

Capitalism was indeed a better way once. — Chet Hawkins

Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' was not really invisible if you read his writings on ethics along with The Wealth of Nations . The problem with systems is that there is a resistance to changing them due to tribal power struggles. Jim Jeffries always says, "We can all do better."

That means we need to GET BUSY defining what is wise and what is not, for real, best subjective guesses on objective morality. — Chet Hawkins

This sentence ends a paragraph that I think you should think about some more. The Oracle of Delphi said Socrates was wise, but Socrates said he wasn't. Sophistry may get a bad rap, but part of it may be well deserved. '...the best subjective guess on objective reality."I think that is what opinion is.

Well, I think the limit to human is a problem, — Chet Hawkins

We have to limit a topic of discussion.

But I disagree strongly that they were wiser than us per capita. In fact we are wiser in every way than they were, even per capita — Chet Hawkins

I stay with my statement. We don't have any way to test, however, if they weren't wiser, none would have existed long enough for us to be here today. We stand on their shoulders, not Socrates' shoulders. We are now waiting for AI to write all of our papers, news articles, etc. Edward Fredkin wondered if the robots would keep us as pets. How wise is that?

So, refrain, restraint, ... these are fear words, order-centric. And the avoidance of discussion of morality or sins or good and evil, is just that, avoiding the truth. — Chet Hawkins

Those are not fear words. It simply means I avoid conversations that tend to idealism or religious overtones. To Quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

My model of reality, which I am writing a book on, is for 'generic' wisdom, free from any organized religion and focusing only on objective moral truth (wisdom). — Chet Hawkins

I think Kant did that, and we are still arguing about it.

Denigration of idealism as an aim is an immoral Pragmatic failure. — Chet Hawkins

I am not denigrating idealism. I don't believe it.

People use aphorisms incorrectly. — Chet Hawkins

"That begs the question..." That is a phrase that has gained some currency, and it has been incorrectly lifted from the philosopher's lexicon.

people cloak themselves in that which they believe is wisdom, and all unknowingly, thus subvert wisdom. — Chet Hawkins

Xenophanes - "But opinion is allotted to all."

Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money. — Chet Hawkins

I say human because I want to limit the subject of this conversation to humans. I love my dog, too.

It is thus extremely accurate to say that inasmuch as most people were deeply unwise before, they have extended the capacity for a lack of wisdom to new and greater depths as time passes. — Chet Hawkins

My idea is that there was more wisdom and invention in our prehistoric ancestors, otherwise we would not be able to talk about this on this contraption I am using right now. I have to think that they were smarter and more capable than we are. I will not name a recent example, but you must be aware of some 'geniuses' whose fortunes are built upon someone else's work.

Humans are worth mentioning as greater sinners than animals (or rocks). What evolves past humanity will have even more negative or sinful potential. It is a law of the universe. — Chet Hawkins

From your speech, I see you take that as axiomatic. I refrain from words like 'sinner' and 'evil', because try as I might, I am not much of a poet. We make choices that can be beneficial, or detrimental, or both at the same time. I am not persuaded that it is a law that whatever comes next will have exceedingly 'sinful potential'. Is that entropy?

I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution. — Chet Hawkins

I do not think the situation is worse than it has been. I am constantly echoing Confucius' 2600 year old cry, "We need a rectification of names!" Heraclitus moved up to the mountains because he did not want to listen to crowd anymore, if I am reading it correctly.

Utopia is REQUIRED to be moral. That is not extant Utopia, as in realized by humanity or other 'thinkers', but Utopia as a dream, as a goal — Chet Hawkins

Utopia is not required to be moral. Living together successfully requires ethics for living together successfully. I am not a German Idealist, however I think Kant had some understanding of things required for 'us to just all get along.' And the US Constitution is aspirational, but no utopia. Utopia is an idealist concept, as opposed to aspirations towards getting along with one another and not killing ourselves and others.

It also means 'You are God and I am God and We are God together'. Maybe there was a song ... — Chet Hawkins

Way to idealistic for me. Sorry!

Umqua and Hoo were just putting ochre in their hair man for the Wa-da festival, to impress the dudes. Then they smacked it on the wall. And life was boring so they had some drawing contests. Intellectual masters might be a stretch. — Chet Hawkins

I would like to persuade you that your opinion of our predecessors is not true. Our cultural cloud has given us the stereotypical caveman, which I do not think is accurate. McLuhan in Understanding Media talk about 'primitive' people encountering technology and they assimilate it into their lives just as 'modern' people. From what I can ascertain in news reports, terrorists living in remote areas are more technically sophisticated than I am. They have used the internet, Facebook, etc. more than I have, and before I have used them. I have no test to show the intelligence of our predecessors. The experimentation and invention that were required to give their progeny a foundation required much luck and much genius. Mathew Arnold talked about "the power of the man and the power of the moment." I think that applies to our ancient ancestors.

With the advent, development, and widespread adoption of Scientific inclination, with an increasingly upward trend. — 013zen

I agree with this 'upward trend' pertaining to science. That is Steven Pinker's position. I said we are technically more sophisticated than our forbears, but we have not progressed as far as we think we have because we have the ability to alleviate much of the suffering that continues in the world, and much of it is autogenic, not just from natural catastrophes. We also have the other side of humanity: Anti-vaccine groups have no science behind them. The Covid pandemic could have been handled better if we had learned anything from the misnamed Spanish Flu pandemic (science learned but most humans did not, even some human scientists).The Q conspiracies, of the recent past, have no science behind them. Tribal distrust, in our politics, has no science behind it, yet every person thinks he is right. Xenophanes fragment 34, "...But opinion is allotted to all." Science has learned, I agree with you, but, humans, in their core, have not changed that much. "Technical sophistication, misprision and convoluted errors" is what I said earlier, and I still think that is a true characterization of humanity, past,
present, and future.

By calling her work: The Human Condition, she's saying that this is the position we are all in, aka this is the environment that we exist in, and that enables us a unique freedom that other beings don't have. — 013zen

I am not sure that Arendt is positing anything in her book, it is an analysis of the human condition in western, developed civilization, which is not all of humanity. She has provided an analytical lens for our condition and anything we get from that is on us.

I am uncertain as to whether or not that's truly what makes a human a human. — 013zen

That is a truly idealistic thought. I am not an idealist, and I think we are already all human with our science, conspiracies, warts, and all.

I just asked my Greek friend, he says it means justice. — Lionino

Thank you for making me do my own research. It also means righteousness, and it is from dikaios, which means "of persons, observant of customs and social rule, well ordered, civilized...regular way of living...observant of right." In later usage "of things, even, well balanced, regular, exact, rigid...to speak, quite exactly." This is from Liddell and Scott"s lexicon of Attic Greek. There were declension and case in Ancient Greek language which, depending upon the author using a word, gave varied meanings to a word that can not be reified, as in the word 'justice'.

Thank you! I chose isoporph because I was tired of choosing a name and the machine said that name is already taken. I've put my own name in sometimes and I'm told , "That is taken!" So isomorph it is. I will have to take some time to let your post percolate before I can comment on you wonderful observations. As far as quoting religious texts, my belief system is I like reading old literature. I can't say I ascribe to any one. None would have me after getting to know me, and the feeling would end up being mutual. Years ago, Wilt Chamberlain was being interviewed and the Olympic committee had bad things to say about him. His response "Their opinion of me is probably higher than my opinion of them."

a thinking capacity equal to ours, maybe greater than ours

I say 'maybe' because we have no way to test, however, what was accomplished from zero, the whole foundation upon which human civilization flourished, I would tend to think their mental capacity is equal to ours, and their group capacity may have been greater than ours. The necessity of their daily life was something very few people today know.

How do the drawings on cave walls imply intellectual capacities rather than simply artistic abilities? — jgill

Well, first of all, they are not just graffiti, some of the painting show depth, which requires a tremendous amount of attention and skill. The color mixes required experimentation and experience, knowledge of materials, a great deal of time was invested in learning all of this and making the paintings. It is not just someone with artistic ability picking up some material at the store and finding out they could draw and paint, they were 'inventing the wheel' so to speak. They had no shoulders to stand on. It was the same intelligence that made the first basket, the first animal bladder to carry water, burned the first brick and clay for a pottery vase. Their intelligence was guided by necessity and the geniuses made all of these things to aid in their daily life. They then made time to produce art. I would say they were very intelligent.

Thank you.

I personally, think Bacon was being a tad bit extreme (for good reason, at his time), that today, these idols are becoming (I hope) less perverse. I — 013zen

I hardly feel that our idols are becoming less perverse. Perhaps in your mind as you have grown, but, humans, in general are subject to the same proclivities through time. Contemporaneous idols may seem domesticated, while ancient idols are exotic and seem more extreme, but they are all just as perverse, as you put it.

So, it is apparent then that ideas have been replaced with ideas. But, by what mechanism does this replacement occur? — 013zen

A starting point to see how this paradigm shift happens is in Kuhn's The Structure of Scientic Revolutions.

Yes, and while perhaps appropriate, the question remains...she thinks that we are "apparently" beings meant to engage in praxis. — 013zen

Fill up life with things that pertain to life. That is not what the Greeks thought and I don't believe that is the thinking today, because things that pertain to life are necessary things: building , growing, etc.That would be my definition of praxis.

Bacon's idols were, as Bacon thought, mental errors, and that is an appropriate human concern no matter what era. I use the word idol in a common way: the Golden Calf idol of Hebrew days, rock and roll idols today. It is merely a way of speaking about mental attitudes toward anything in life. Nebuchadnezzar's idol and its destruction is a metaphor in my dialogue. It is apparent from the growth of knowledge about the universe that many ideas held in sacrosanct have been demolished. Hannah Arendt gave an appropriate analysis of the human condition from the perspective of western philosophy; I am saying there is an overarching human condition that we should become aware of if we are to prevent biathanatos.

(If) culture is Nature (which I haven't settled on) and hubris is "bad" (which I have settled upon). ...

I would not say culture is Nature (capital N), but it is in our nature. The human condition pertains to how we are on the earth and in the world we make.

2. But C is Natural, you (and likely most people(?)) say. It's not there in the so-called primal. So it must have evolved...(?) — ENOAH

My proposition is that culture is part of social human nature. The only difference between us and our prehistoric ancestors is technical sophistication, so the word ‘primal’ to me refers to something before modern humans were in the ascendency.

our human nature engages in a lot of processes where we necessarily behave as if we were two; — ENOAH

Humans definitely have competing interests within ourselves, as well as in our community: love, hate, greed, altruism, etc.

Also if hubris is nature, is it really bad? Yes, I know, aggression is nature and also bad; and so are hurricanes. But are they? — ENOAH

Heraclitus fragment 61: “While cosmic wisdom understands all things are good and just, intelligence may find injustice here and justice somewhere else.”
The universe is impartial, while justice, injustice, purpose and meaning all have to do with humans living together successfully. That’s what determines good, bad, etc. I am not an idealist, gut an absurdist. I’ve never been able to grasp essences and forms outside of the virtual reality in which they exist in our minds.

we can most effectively protect our organic beings, and the species, if we recognize that both the so called good and the so called bad are already not what we are, — ENOAH

Nietzsche talked about our instinct for survival being the thing we have not gotten rid of. I don’t tend to use words ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural” lightly because they are easily misunderstood as good and bad. I am saying culture is in our nature as social animals, and with our wonderfully excess mental capacities, we are capable of doing great good and also kill ourselves on the installment plan.

Lionino is right, the way I am using the word idol is akin to Francis Bacon's 'idols of the mind', which were mental errors. That is what I mean and also 'heroes', cultural stereotypes, ideas that we hold onto in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I am not advocating ridding ourselves of ideas and thoughts just because they are old. I am advocating using a critical eye on ancient ways, but especially on new items. Particularly in the 20th century, The emphasis is on newness, rather than improving what already exists. Tech people would consider me a luddite, but I'm not against tech, I am against not improving what is here now. Our consumer culture is all about production and consumption and that is an idol that should be destroyed.

Yes! We are able to achieve technical sophistication and gross errors.

The age of languages or civilizations is not to my point. My propositions imply that we are not necessarily smarter than our prehistoric ancestors, just more technically sophisticated. I think it is evident, without citation, that civilizations rise and fall. Why? What can be done to prevent it? Nietzsche, in The Gay Science, talks about our instinct for survival, That is what I am talking about. Humans never would have made it from prehistory to writing history if we did not have organizational skills. Ants have no writing, but have organizational skills; E. O. Wilson has stated that ants outnumber humans in sheer numbers and bio-mass. Humans are a blip on historical radar and we are likely to be obliterated by natural cataclysm or, according to the current prophets, by our own hands. If we are smart, we should be able to fix at least some problems. According to CNN there are 35 billionaires, each of whom has more money than the US. The reason why we can't fix it, in my opinion is the cloud of civilization, i.e., hubris - we are smarter and better than everyone else. I have to go with the christian thesis that we are born flawed, however, I don't think there is a savior coming to help us. I think humans are able to learn much more, but I don't think we are as smart as we think we are. Don Lincoln at Fermi Labs said that we know some things well, but it is only a small percentage of what there is to know.

Agriculture requires laws, not writing. The Inca civilization left no written records that have been found, but they built Machu Picchu. They recorded their history in a system of knots called quipus. Civilization is a human organization and I don't believe there was a Hobbesian war of all against all.

Yes, I think you are reading it correctly, however, I should perhaps make it more clear that I think culture is a natural part of human nature/existence. I think all humans are 'authentically' human, there is no need for humans to discover themselves to be authentic. I think the quest for 'true nature' or 'authenticity' results from an idealist program. Arendt talks about Ancient Greek thinking that anyone who had to "labor', that is do things that support life was no better than a slave - slaves were for cooking, cleaning, taking care of the garden, etc. Slaves gave the Greeks time to think of things like the 'true world of forms', etc.

I prefer to think we make good and bad choices, and hubris, of course leads to tragedy (homo sapient hubris). Gnothy sauton written on the walls at the Oracle of Delphi, usually translated 'know yourself' has the meaning of 'know your place', that is the guard against hubris.

Tom, my intention is to clarify my ideas about the human condition that have been inspired by Arendt's work. As I said, her book was from the perspective of western philosophy.

Kizzy, I posted this in feral philosophy. It's my first post and I'm just learning how to work this. Thanks

Tom, I am not advocating a return to a natural state, golden age, Arcadia, etc. I did not mean to imply that. I have to go back to the cloud metaphor. Some recent archeology in Central America indicates that some of the civilizations were so successful that they depleted their resources. I think that is culture and not a result of our survival instincts.

Thank you for the welcome. It seems culture and religion are tow sides of the coin. I am reminded of what Carl Sagan said about religion, i.e., we should be careful of how we condemn it because of the enrichment and enjoyment it has added to life. I'm not advocating a search for aboriginal religion.

It only matters in relation to human existence. In an absurd universe, nothing we do ultimately matters, but if our survival abilities are clouded, we will never be able to adapt, and that is what I think has happened.

China is a cradle civilization and Confucius came out of the culture that sprang from Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun, both legendary and from the third millennium b.c.e.

Yes, that is what I am positing. I am currently thinking of culture a a cloud. That is not an exhaustive metaphor, but it serves the purpose of explaining why we can't see other cultures, or even our own nature. As Confucius said, born alike, but by practice far apart. It is an obvious generalization since even within cultures, many of us are different with differing capacities, and abilities, but I think autochthonous humans spent several hundred thousand years before the culture cloud developed, so there was evolutionary value in what we were. I'm not saying culture is bad, it gives us enjoyment, enrichment, etc., but our evolutionary instincts suffer from the cloud. There is no logical reason why we can't solve many problems.

I would say that knowledge comes under several headings (scientific, cultural, literary knowledge, social knowledge, etc.) but water freezing at 32 degrees (caveats for saline content, etc.) would be scientific knowledge and could never be considered a social or linguistic framework. I think we have a mediated knowledge of reality, but what I'm really trying to explore is the human condition without the culture that seems to make us all different. I've been working on Arendt's book The Human Condition for awhile and it is strictly about the human condition from the perspective of western philosophy. It is thorough and quite prescient even into the 21st century (written in 1958), but I'm also cognizant of Confucian humanism which had thousands of years culture behind it at the same time that the basis for western culture was in its infancy.