Subject:
|
Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:37:04 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETstopspam
|
Viewed:
|
581 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> Do I smell a troll?
;-)
>
> John Neal wrote:
> >
> > Okay, Lar, I guess I would like to hear why you think goodness is innate?
>
> I would like to hear the basis for it too. I know that I'm innately
> good, but I do see an awful lot of seemingly bad people.
How are you innately good? Is not being good a learned behavior?
> In many ways I support the LP platform, but I don't think innate
> goodness is needed for it to work. I think that all you have to count
> on are self-interest and that's the strength of libertarianism. I'm
> quite satisfied that self-interest is innate.
I know this has been covered elsewhere, but could you distinguish for me the difference between self-interest and
selfishness? I agree that selfishness (looking out for #1) is innate, but would argue that it is the reason
Libertopia *won't* work.
> > And BTW, extropianism is quite naive in assuming that science and wisdom
> > will solve our problems.
>
> Between the two very broad ideas of 'science' and 'wisdom' some problems
> aren't solved, then something is very wrong. Science can solve some of
> our problems and shed light on new ones that we didn't know we have.
I'm talking about "Why am I here?", "What's the meaning of Life?" "What happens after I die?" questions.
> > What difference does it make whether I live in a cave 50,000 years ago or am sitting
> > in front of a TV watching Jerry Springer?
>
> What does that mean? Obviously, the cave dweller is a higher
> consciousness. But that has nothing to do with science.
lol What I mean is: we may be more comfortable, live longer and walk on the moon, but we are still going to
die, just as Caveman did before us. We're still in the same boat, only now it's the QBII instead of a bamboo
raft.
> > I still live (maybe longer, with or without the aid of a ventilator), and I still die.
>
> Maybe a lot longer. Maybe through near-term genetic therapy we'll do
> away with old age entirely and then just start concentrating on organ
> rejuvenation or replacement. Or, if you can be completely simulated,
> then you can live as long as you can keep an upload copy running. I
> hope to be copied onto millions of outbound starships and live a
> trillion unending lives across the universe.
But not probable. But you may continue to exist after your physical death, anyway. Why no thought to this
possibility?
> But you think that's just
> the same as watching Jerry Springer?
>
> > The important questions will always be beyond science by definition,
>
> Excuse me? Definition of what? Science? Important? Question? What
> are you talking about?
Meaning. Science can't talk about meaning. You can understand how a clock works right down to the last spring,
but if you can't tell time, what good does it do you? What about the question of God? Science can't talk about
something it can't test and prove or disprove. God, by definition, is unprovable. So does that mean that a God
can't exist? Hardly.
> > and therefore the pursuit of them through science is merely an exercise in futility.
>
> Nah.
>
> > People want to know that their lives mean something, that there is more to life than
> > simply working hard every day to make ends meet.
>
> I don't. I don't want to be deluded in any way. Instead of hiding from
> those very real issues (the random meaninglessness of life)
AFAYK
> I want to
> conquer them.
???
> I want to carve my own meaning out of this opportunity.
> People need to set goals for themselves.
I think there is a lot more to life than goal achievement. No matter what you do, you will still be a
meaningless nanosecond blip in the course of the Universe. To think otherwise is self-delusion.
> > Science makes our lives more convenient, more comfortable, and maybe even richer, but > not more meaningful.
>
> But if science can conquer the myths that people buy into about the
> universe, then people will be more free to fully explore their lives.
> Tied down to foolish notions of an afterlife
That could quite possibly be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! What are you talking about?
> , reincarnation, judgment,
> karma, etc. people are less likely to take the bull by the horns and
> make something of themselves because they'll be worrying about
> conforming to some arbitrarily made-up set of rules by which to live.
Or, without some assurance that their lives have meaning, they'll splatter their brains on the wall in despair.
Albert Camus said that the most important question one must ask oneself is "should I kill myself?" If you can't
come up with a good reason not to, then just do it.
> > Property,
> > after all, is just property, and the guy with the most stuff at the end
> > doesn't win cuz you can't take it with you AFAIK.
>
> I agree, but if you can make it work for you to accomplish something,
> then it's great stuff. The Catholic church used tons of money to
> commission great works of art. Bill Gates could potentially start
> mining the asteroids (that's what I'd do with his cash) or whatever.
> Property is great stuff because you can use it to get stuff done.
Get what stuff done? To what end? What's the point?
-John
> > Post-Modernism, baby. Science is bankrupt;-)
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
| You say this life is meaningless and that you need religion to give your life meaning. You say that you don't know what's after this life. Fine. You are welcome to your small view of this existance and your problems. But I ain't buying what you're (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
| (...) I started out good. I can't explain it. I actually became bad as an adolescent and I'm back to being a good person - but not really as good as I was when I was a kid. Short of having a temper problem, I was ethically perfect. I never stole, I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
| Do I smell a troll? (...) I would like to hear the basis for it too. I know that I'm innately good, but I do see an awful lot of seemingly bad people. In many ways I support the LP platform, but I don't think innate goodness is needed for it to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
