A philosophical proposal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(21-07-2015 04:29 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 07:46 AM)tear151 Wrote:  What are you saying here other than "Humans do what they do because they are Human"

Shovels dig because of their physics, that doesn't really tell me anything new about shovels though.

I don't think philosophy tells us anything new about being human. That's no argument.

Archi

I'm not saying your wrong, just... and? I don't see what's so ground breaking about this idea or what it's implications are.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(27-07-2015 10:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 04:29 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  I don't think philosophy tells us anything new about being human. That's no argument.

Archi

I'm not saying your wrong, just... and? I don't see what's so ground breaking about this idea or what it's implications are.

We are a curious species, we value novelty as long as it's 'safe' - gotta love the irony in that.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(24-07-2015 02:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 04:36 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  Do you agree we are fundamentally biological?

If you do then it is down to you to demonstrate how philosophical questions are not rooted in our biology. I am stating that they are all rooted in our biology (as stated in my OP) and that it is the nature of the question that determines which fundamental part of our biology that question is deployed to satisfy whether directly or indirectly as part of a more complex strategic deployment.

'Pondering ideas' is typical of the obfuscating language we use to hide our true nature, domain general strategic thinking has been around longer than civilization. Our ability to deploy strategies in novel situations is what makes us so successful as a species, this opportunism is the foundation of our evolutionary persistence, it is, if you want to deploy the type of language that props up our conceit, the secret of our success.

Being able to ask random philosophical question that are seemingly unrelated to our needs is a testament to how sophisticated our delusions have become in denying the fact we are animals. Part of that delusion is denying our biology, I mean, who wants to accept that whatever it is we do we are still at the mercy of evolutionary forces and no matter how clever we think we are getting, one day we will - and I'll bet my life on it - become extinct and there is nothing we can do about it.

So we seek the means to soften the blow, to give us cause to strive to live, we are victims of our own brilliance - prisoners of our understanding of the fragility of our existence. Civilization is about getting us as far away from the stink of our own shit as we can.

I'm happy to buy into that delusion but I'm not going to lie to myself about it.

Archi

So what if we are fundamentally biological? The problem I have is merely you conclusion.. Because Philosophical questions can have no answer or make no sense biologically. They're not limited to biological reasoning in their answers.

Can biology answer all the why you asked or came up with those question answers, sure, but that's not your full conclusion. That's the process you state, that's fine. Your conclusion that it generates the potential to answer all philosophical questions is a bit of a leap to me.

Some philosophical questions aren't designed to have an answer. Like moral quandaries of the Trolley Problem. What's the right answer, moral action or moral guilt over letting 5 people die? It's not a certain answerable task via our biology because it questions the layers of our biology's urges for both self preservation & community assisting to help boost that self preservation. Other philosophical questions are such as, What is justified true belief? How do we qualify if we know it or not?

There's also nonsense questions like can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot even he can't eat it... obviously the joke one, but based off the can an Omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

I did not say biology has all the answers, that is ridiculous. I said philosophy is an extension of our biology, that is a completely different thing entirely.

Every question we use has an underlying strategic goal (or even multiple goals), one might be to discover a novel use for an old strategy (e.g. can fire be used to clean our teeth?), which would have a direct impact on our health and therefore our survival. One might be to signal our allegiance to a particular social group, like this forum is used by people who want to be seen to align themselves with atheist type thinking, therefore it is a social strategy. Some questions are deployed to make the person who asks them look clever or erudite or just strategically savvy, and so are dominance displays, perhaps designed to look attractive to a desired mate. All three strategies are valid but all three have a biological imperative driving them. I'm not suggesting these are the only strategies in play, there are many others but these three are common.

What would be the point in asking a question that has no answer? The point I'm making is you have to ask what is the strategy being deployed here? Ultimately you will find it arises from our needs, which are biological (or chemical as someone said earlier).

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 10:37 PM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(27-07-2015 02:53 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(24-07-2015 02:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So what if we are fundamentally biological? The problem I have is merely you conclusion.. Because Philosophical questions can have no answer or make no sense biologically. They're not limited to biological reasoning in their answers.

Can biology answer all the why you asked or came up with those question answers, sure, but that's not your full conclusion. That's the process you state, that's fine. Your conclusion that it generates the potential to answer all philosophical questions is a bit of a leap to me.

Some philosophical questions aren't designed to have an answer. Like moral quandaries of the Trolley Problem. What's the right answer, moral action or moral guilt over letting 5 people die? It's not a certain answerable task via our biology because it questions the layers of our biology's urges for both self preservation & community assisting to help boost that self preservation. Other philosophical questions are such as, What is justified true belief? How do we qualify if we know it or not?

There's also nonsense questions like can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot even he can't eat it... obviously the joke one, but based off the can an Omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

I did not say biology has all the answers, that is ridiculous. I said philosophy is an extension of our biology, that is a completely different thing entirely.

Every question we use has an underlying strategic goal (or even multiple goals), one might be to discover a novel use for an old strategy (e.g. can fire be used to clean our teeth?), which would have a direct impact on our health and therefore our survival. One might be to signal our allegiance to a particular social group, like this forum is used by people who want to be seen to align themselves with atheist type thinking, therefore it is a social strategy. Some questions are deployed to make the person who asks them look clever or erudite or just strategically savvy, and so are dominance displays, perhaps designed to look attractive to a desired mate. All three strategies are valid but all three have a biological imperative driving them. I'm not suggesting these are the only strategies in play, there are many others but these three are common.

What would be the point in asking a question that has no answer? The point I'm making is you have to ask what is the strategy being deployed here? Ultimately you will find it arises from our needs, which are biological (or chemical as someone said earlier).

Archi

I'm not saying you said Biology has all the answers, I directly quoted what you said in the first post. That biology has the potential to answer all the questions.

Point of asking no questions with no answer? Large portions of life and philosophical outlooks have been formed off that. That's what peoples philosophical questions of the search for "truths" and gods have been. Or merely there are tons of non-answer having philosophical "problems"/Thought Experiments. You can't really conclude you could potentially answer all the philosophical questions but rule out particularly wonky untruth having questions. They still are apart of the field and mindset.

All of our questions come from our biology but they don't only search for answers involving our biology. I would say if they did we could be able to figure them out.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 05:58 AM
RE: A philosophical proposal
Biology may play a part, but most human concepts, ideas, and thought come from social evolution and environment as well as our own biology.

Without the social aspect which while is a product of biology, is still separate from it. It evolves on its own an influences everything including the constructs in which we have created.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2015 07:36 AM by rezider.)
RE: A philosophical proposal
Read this.

Try not to pay attention to the political stuff. Focus on the main idea of labour. I believe this is very interesting and I hope you find it interesting yourself.

The article was included in Dialectics of Nature, but Engels never finished it. It is astray of your main question... but I guess it is still of some worth to the discussion.

You could also check out Karl Marx's thoughts on our ability to extend our sense with tools: hammers, telescopes, radio etc.

"I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." - Carl Sagan
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(28-07-2015 05:58 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Biology may play a part, but most human concepts, ideas, and thought come from social evolution and environment as well as our own biology.

Without the social aspect which while is a product of biology, is still separate from it. It evolves on its own an influences everything including the constructs in which we have created.

I disagree entirely.

You are talking about complex adaptive systems (CAS), which social strategies are. While I agree there are two key points in the life cycle of any CAS, the conditions that give rise to it in the first place and the point at which the system begins to feedback and influence itself, but this does not mean either of these factors are what causes those strategies to be deployed.

Social groups do not all of a sudden all come up with the same strategy at once, individuals with influence deploy the strategies that others buy into. If you then argue that others are buying into this idea then you must also accept that there is a different strategy in play here, one is a primary strategy the others are secondary or even tertiary strategies designed to invoke social coherence which in turn provides security. Any 'evolution' that may come from that is clearly incidental.

Any other idea that society is a 'mind' in and of itself is extremely naïve and over simplified.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: A philosophical proposal
(27-07-2015 10:37 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm not saying you said Biology has all the answers, I directly quoted what you said in the first post. That biology has the potential to answer all the questions.

Sorry, yes to clarify. Biology has the potential to answer all our questions but not in and of itself be the answer to all our questions.

Hope that clears it up. My bad.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: