Subject:
|
Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:46:24 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.MISSOURI.EDUstopspam
|
Viewed:
|
564 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote:
>
> > 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?
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 never hurt anyone, or any lower
animal (maybe bugs, I guess), I shared readily, etc. etc. I was also
brilliant (this has also faded): I won the library summer reading
contest every year from two years on (My bright four year old still
doesn't read whole sentences and he's a bit ahead of the curve). I'm
not lying or bragging, but I was an amazing child.
But, I learned how to be evil.
> 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.
I equate self-interest and selfishness. They are different terms for
the greatest and maybe the single attribute that all people have in common.
> I'm talking about "Why am I here?", "What's the meaning of Life?" "What happens after I die?" questions.
I believe that science is a thinking tool that can _help to_ answer any
questions that can be asked as long as an approach to study can be
devised. Science is a method of inquiry, not a technology or a
philosophy (though that last might be arguable, I guess).
Science has answered the "why am I here." The "what's the meaning of
life" is answered by individuals and that's the only way it can be...we
each decide for ourselves. And what makes you think that it can't
address "what happens after I die?"
> 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.
OK, so if you're ragging in science as not being the cure-all of
people's interests, who are you thinking believes that it is?
Extropians? You're wrong. We extropians have philosophical discussions
that have nothing to do with science. Are you suggesting that your
religion (as a counter to science) will be able to do away with death -
since that's the benchmark that you're putting science to?
> But not probable. But you may continue to exist after your physical death, anyway.
> Why no thought to this possibility?
That's what I was talking about. There are lots of forms of
immortality. I hope to significantly propagate my genes. That's one
form of immortality - not for my consciousness, but for something. And,
I hope to pass along my favored memeset. That's the important form of
immortality. And if I can upload and duplicate, then that's another
immortality. If I write a book that's studied in 2000 years, I'll have
won the whole caboodle.
> Meaning. Science can't talk about meaning.
What is meaning? Why can't science investigate it?
> 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?
I don't get the analogy. Sorry if I'm being dense.
> What about the question of God? Science can't talk about something it can't test and
> prove or disprove.
Yes it can. Actually it is completely not the business or goal of
science to prove anything. Science - through the use of logic - can
disprove things by pointing to instances in which a hypothesis is
demonstrated to be incorrect, but instance in which said hypothesis is
correct, only support the hypothesis, not prove it.
> God, by definition, is unprovable.
By what definition?
> So does that mean that a God can't exist? Hardly.
No, God has the freedom to exist, but so do invisible monsters that
can't affect my world. God - whether or not He exists in a objective
metaphysical sense - exists as a motivator of people. As a strong and
successful meme. As far as I'm concerned, God and heaven DO exist, but
I have no reason to believe that they can hurt me beyond through their
human agents.
> and therefore the pursuit of them through science is merely an exercise in futility.
I don't see how, but maybe I will after you answer some of my above comments.
> > 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
That's right. After watching the way the world works for 29+ years, and
watching carefully, I have no reason to believe that I'm not the result
of a biochemical "accident."
> I think there is a lot more to life than goal achievement.
There isn't. Maybe one of your goals is to come to some inner peace
given the precepts about the cosmos that you have adopted. That feels
to you like developing a relationship is Jesus - or whatever, I'm not
trying to assume things about your religious stance, and I'm not trying
to belittle them...I just disagree.
> 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.
Nope. I have the potential to affect billions of people of thousands of
years. And I don't care about the universe's time sense. I care about
my own. I feel like I can get a pretty good grasp on four thousand
years, and beyond that, I'm just not going to get it. So if I can
effect 4000 years, I win the blue ribbon. And if I can just satisfy my
own goals, regardless of my effect outside of that, I still win.
> > 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?
Really? What don't you understand? I'm denigrating superstition and
suggesting that people who throw that particular yoke off have a greater
capacity to be fully human. We each need to decide for ourselves how to
be great. If you read some book and decide that you have to be great by
the definitions given in that book, then I have doubts that you're being
true to your self.
> > , 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.
Well. I don't really know how to answer that. My first response is
that it's a completely asinine idea, but maybe not. I'm glad that I am
not so weak as to need extrinsic motivators and meaning. It is a
saddening prospect that such might not be true for everyone else. Maybe
that's why so many people have been taken in by superstitious belief sets.
> 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.
I guess in some ways I agree with him. I can think of lots of reasons
not to.
> > 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?
Whatever you want. To make a mark, to kill time, to feel good, whatever.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: naiveté (was: Re: Extropianism)
|
| (...) ;-) (...) How are you innately good? Is not being good a learned behavior? (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
