Why only slightly balding? >:OIs this the thread for horny and slightly balding single men? — Heister Eggcart
So where do I sit once I find her? :-OI said find, not find her and sit on her. — Heister Eggcart
:-} To say it is yet to be empirically tested is to misunderstand it. It cannot be empirically tested, because every new society that comes up will still be puffed up by this self-belief and this delusion that it really is different than all those that went before it. All it takes is one sufficiently bad leader/administration and things will be over - for any civilisation.So your sweeping claim is yet to be empirically tested. — apokrisis
Right - so if human beings statistically have a tendency towards immorality, that means that given technology, their immorality will have much greater consequences now than ever before, because it too will be amplified. This pretty much suggests that we're going to end all of human civilisation in nuclear war.Technology is a tool for amplifying human action. — apokrisis
I'm not against naturalism - I fail to see how naturalism would fail to note the inability to alter man's character, and if man's character is a large driving factor for his actions, and man is naturally predisposed or has a tendency towards immorality, and technology amplifies man's actions, it kind of only follows that things are going to get worse quite quickly.I know it is your thing to play the conservative. But again, I have outlined the grounds on which I am founding a view. It is the one supported by science and philosophical naturalism. So just repeating your own paradigmatic assumptions in reply is otiose. — apokrisis
Not only this. If you read accounts of the fall of Rome from historical sources you will see a multitude of factors among which loss of discipline, and loss of motivation which permitted them to be defeat by barbarians.Anthropological bollocks. It over-ran its ability to control an empire. It ran out of new grain fields to occupy.
So it had a brilliant social formula - for its time. But then fell apart because it over-ran what its hierarchical organisation could contain.
So it arose on things like speed of communication, coherence of action. And fell apart after the social technologies involved could no longer cope with the scale of the task. — apokrisis
Sure, so?But you are arguing from your own personal vague definitions of intellect and morality. As a naturalist, I aim higher. If nature is in fact intelligible, these are things we can properly define and measure. They are not just matters of opinion. — apokrisis
If you're referring to Guns, Germs and Steel, I've read it and I'm not impressed. My reading of history shows that these weren't the main factors. The main factors were always social - in the evolving social mentalities. Baghdad at the height of the Islamic golden age lost its virtues - people became like today - many academics, many scientists, lots of musicians, a flowering and promiscuous culture, loss of motivation amongst the youth, a very extensive compassion, an anti-military hippie kinda culture etc. Then it collapsed.All earlier examples of social collapse (as evidenced for example by Jared Diamond) were societies that didn't understand their natural basis sufficiently. — apokrisis
*nods* (Y)I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex. — Heister Eggcart
Hmm then what about all the talk of "it would be better if there was no suffering"? The pessimist is still engaged in thinking how things could have been better, how they could have been different - instead of being engaged with the world as it is.No, the pessimist merely acknowledges this, because he also knows that complaining about what cannot be changed is a foolish waste of time. — Thorongil
The point I'm making is that understanding such lifecycles does not help prevent them at all. Human nature (or human folly) if you want is such that the said society, will at one point, not act according to such an understanding. It's already starting not to in fact. You think technology can overstep man's morality. But it can't. Technology is of no use in such matters because it cannot alter the CHARACTER of human beings. Too much good and people lose motivation. The Roman Empire didn't disappear because of natural disaster and pandemic - it disappeared due to internal reasons. Internally it became unstable. Why? Because of depravation and loss of moral values - loss of the virtues.There is the long-run issue to. But a "perfect" society - that understood itself in these organismic terms - would understand such lifecycle issues and thus know how to guard against it. — apokrisis
Except that pandemics and the like aren't the biggest danger. The biggest danger is within man's own heart.I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult. But in fact modern society does a pretty good job at planning for pandemics and climate resilience. It is exactly this kind of organic lifecycle thinking which is starting to be applied (if perhaps not nearly quick enough to actually save our particular neoliberal/globalised/fossil fuel based "utopia"). :) — apokrisis
I think people are actually more dumb than ever before on average. Sure, they have more knowledge than ever before, but certainly not more intelligence - too much comfort dulls down their intelligence, and all that is left is mere knowledge.So who could argue with a modern society that is producing ever smarter, fitter, better-looking and civilised folk - on average? — apokrisis
There is no dealing with it at a social level, I agree with that. No perfect society. But the pessimist takes a further step than saying just this. He complains about it - as if such a society should be possible but isn't.The pessimist's response is that there is no "dealing with it," in the sense of solving it. Stop immanentizing the eschaton. There will not be, and more importantly, cannot be a utopia on this planet. — Thorongil
Yes now that I have expressed my disgust with this whole affair, I will be able to peacefully walk out the door, having done my duty, and let you guys be up to whatever you see fit without any further disturbances. I wish you good luck, and hope that you know what to do with it :PThis is the random sexual deviancy thread, Agustino, and you are seriously missing the point here. The idea is to include in your post some form of random sexual deviancy otherwise you are in the wrong place and should bounce out of here on your presumably large and flexible dildo. — Baden
Don't think that we're all like you my friend ;)No more than if I took that smiley and shoved it up your arse. In other words, I'm sure you quite enjoy it, my lovely. — Baden
But think of the ridiculousness of your suggestion. The existence of charities at all begs the question of what underlying features of society, human nature, and the world are broken and corrupt enough that they necessitate their existence. If humans were capable of alleviating suffering through charity, then they would be capable of solving the problems that necessitate charity. But they are not and so you are chasing a fool's dream. — Thorongil
'But my nose is running!' What do you have hands for, idiot, if not to wipe it? 'But how is it right that there be running noses in the first place?' Instead of thinking up protests, wouldn't it be easier just to wipe your nose?
What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules
[...]
Now that you know all this, come and appreciate the resources you have, and when that is done, say, 'Bring on whatever difficulties you like Zeus; I have resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens!' — Epictetus
This is correct.Some of them do, but if you look for scholars who do work on Nietzsche, then more often than not, they ignore Schopenhauer. — Thorongil
It seems we have a millionaire in our midsts! :DI sleep on a pillow imported from the far east, with downy feathers and a silk cover. Some say the prince of Persia once rested his head upon its soft embrace. — darthbarracuda
Yes possibly one can see this as a way to take vengeance on the world for what their situation is. Have you never felt such a desire arising in you? Quite possibly you have, but the difference between you and him is that you realise that doing such would not actually change your situation, and the world isn't actually responsible. Your sense of compassion would probably also deter you.but can one be sane and still think it reasonable to kill a group of people in church so that a race war will commence? — Bitter Crank
There is no progress in terms of societies. It's the same cycle having played itself out through all of history, and which will play itself out through all of history. The reason for this is the fallen nature of man.Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else. — unenlightened
Yes you did, but I have no beef with it. It's not about using language to talk about my own prejudicies, it's using it to talk about what's important (and let me remind you that you've associated those virtues with patrilineal societies as well, so I merely identified the important point and went on from there). If you care about the fact that man or woman has a more leading role in society than the other, or whatever other incoherency, that's your problem, and you can go on caring about it day in and day out. I don't. If you disagree that the virtues are necessary for a stable family environment/society, I would like to hear arguments, not quibbles about what words mean.First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication. — unenlightened
No they haven't actually. You name me just one such society. Societies have thrived from social conservative values - the Middle East and India from arranged marriages for example, Europe from the virtue of chastity, and so forth. The only ones who thrived from other values are the savages.And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families. — unenlightened
How is that any different from the Rome of Musonius Rufus and Epictetus (who advocated chastity until marriage for example) degenerating and collapsing in its morals over time? How is it any different than the very religious Islamic caliphate started by Muhammad degenerating into the liberal Baghdad at the height of its powers? A time always comes when people no longer see the value of discipline and virtue, and think they can do without it. Their parents couldn't enjoy life because they were burdened by the virtues - at least they should enjoy life now! It's like an army - if the army is always winning, and they even forget that losing is possible, they lose sight of the value of discipline. They forget that they won in the first place because of discipline. So likewise these young people forget that virtue is actually what made enjoyment possible in the first place, and not happy with the amount of enjoyment possible, they want to extend it, and conclude that removing virtue is the way to do this, without understanding that virtue is what made it possible in the first place.And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen? — unenlightened
First, when I refer to patrilineal societies it's not of the essence with regards to them that the male plays a more important social role than the female. For all I care, it could be the female inheriting the property. What is of importance is that certain virtues exist - monogamy, virginity, loyalty, faithfulness, chastity, control of the sexual impulse. These virtues permit the creation of relatively stable families, where the members work together for the achievement of higher, common goals, with the elimination of potential sources of inner conflict like jealousy, hatred, anger, etc. Families are necessary for building up a strong and healthy society which focuses on its survival and flourishing instead of merely on pleasure.That it happens to be currently so is certainly true, though savagery is by no means confined to undeveloped societies. But I would like to see some argument as to why it is so 'by essence'. You might take the following into account, taken from here. — unenlightened
I don't think it's your ideals that are at fault, but rather your expectations.Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it. — Wosret
Again it's not the ideas which were unrealistic, but the fact that your partner didn't share them. And it would be kinda silly to think you're the only crazy one out there - it's just that, probably like you yourself, the crazy girls are hard to find. But to this day they must be waiting for Wosret...Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. — Wosret
I wouldn't even bother to call these 3 people tribes "societies". The only relevant link there was India, and trust me, if you speak with Indians you'll see that Indian society is largely very conservative.they have started to answer the op's question about other societies — unenlightened
So? This does nothing to settle the question which are the right values. If you're going to say something about that (matrilineal values are right) then i may have some beef with you, otherwise what you're saying is insignificant for me, and quite trivial.Other people have found out how the structure of society produces its values — unenlightened
No the conflict has always existed - just have a read about Cato the Elder for example, or Baghdad at the height of the Islamic caliphate.They may also have started to see how changes in the structure of western society in the last century have led to a current conflict between 'old fashioned' and 'modern' value — unenlightened
Yes, but then this would hold for the one having a degree as well. The thing is the degree doesn't actually help you that much. I have a degree in engineering but I learned very little about it in university and more by actually doing it. I guess I could've been an independent engineer from the very beginning, I would just have started out taking small works that I was certain I could manage and go from there, just like I started in programming. But the problem is, if I actually tried to be an independent engineer after university, I couldn't legally practice even if I took on, say, building someone's garage >:OTo "demonstrate the capacity to do it" for the surgeon cannot just be a portfolio of past successful operations, because the next operation is the one that could expose the gaping hole in his knowledge. — jamalrob
I'm not complaining, I'm laughing at them ;) :P fools are useful, definitely not enemies.When I became a developer I vowed I would never become one of those guys who complained to other developers about "the users", treating them as the enemy. — jamalrob
As I work largely in programming nowadays (database creation and management mostly, but also things like web-design) I know that the user ALWAYS moans about the unfamiliar and requests changes, even if those changes actually make whatever the application happens to be worse >:O (I think they think that by requesting such changes they are keeping the designer "under control" or some weird thing). It's crazy how many substandard applications I've had to make because users just want it that way, and they don't care about the rules of programming or design. I've broken almost all the rules in database creation for some folks >:O but it's their database. If they want it that way, when they want to expand it and increase its functionality it's just going to cost more :DBut when people say they dislike a design it's now second-nature for me as a web developer to find out if there is anything of substance in the complaint so that I can see if I can do something about it, or if it's just people moaning about something unfamiliar or expressing their odd tastes. — jamalrob
