Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Books like Lord of the Flies suggest that civilized humanity deevolves quickly without the presense of a larger socialiatal authority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to finish reading that book sometime, but with my current backlog... But in what way? I suspect that the absence of a regulating authority that would keep human growth and advancement, when in the context of a society, in check would likely slow down, halt, and possibly regress humanity. Then again, we evolved before there were any forms of socialiatal societies - who's to say we can't do so again? In what ways do you think a lack of such authority would contribute to the deevolvement (I'm not even sure this word exists) to groups of individuals, or people trying to be truly individual?
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Traditionally, ethics are gained from our interaction with others, viz we learn them from our parental units. But it is not impossible to consider that ethics may be formed from a contemplation with the individual soley: the soul. Honestly I do not believe in the concept of soul, although I agree with your point (and the rest of what you wrote). However, would you agree ethics derived from exclusively personal interaction with oneself are always founded on external interaction first and foremost, it being a base for future interactions (even only with the self)? It is said that men does not become good or evil because of his interactions with others but because of interactions with himself (or something to that effect). But it seems before going through that he will need to have a base, an example or set of examples that will allow him to do so on his own, ie, he'll need to judge others and learn from interactions with them before he can stop judging them and rely solely on interactions with himself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was just playing with homonyms, it's an occupational hazard for a lexicographer (even an amateur). :D What you ask is not good science (according to the logical psositivism definition), because it is indeed impossible to raise a human without their interaction, or their observance of interactions, with others. So I would OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Well said It's like my brain's acquired this great amount of knowledge! But now I don't know what to do with it... >_>
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Books like Lord of the Flies suggest that civilized humanity deevolves quickly without the presense of a larger socialiatal authority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to finish reading that book sometime, but with my current backlog... But in what way? I suspect that the absence of a regulating authority that would keep human growth and advancement, when in the context of a society, in check would likely slow down, halt, and possibly regress humanity. Then again, we evolved before there were any forms of socialiatal societies - who's to say we can't do so again? In what ways do you think a lack of such authority would contribute to the deevolvement (I'm not even sure this word exists) to groups of individuals, or people trying to be truly individual? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Devolution takes place when the individuals either lack the insight or the trust to work in concert; the result is the strongest individual survives ... you can expand that out to small groups, but the result is very Hobbesian. Read up on Hobbes, and you can also get the Lord of The Flies as a film (I know, I saw it when I was under ten ...) OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Out of curiosity does it bare any similarities with Battle Royale?
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 You tell me. Never heard of it. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Darth Launch Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Out of curiosity does it bare any similarities with Battle Royale? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To an extent... you should watch/read Lord of the Flies though... I personally believe that the story is far superior to that of Battle Royale's [color=gray][i]OO-TINI![/i][/color]
Musopticon? Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 I guess this thread balances our rage of WOT-asshattery for a while. Thanks guys; for keeping the forum at least somewhat sane. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 I guess this thread balances our rage of WOT-asshattery for a while. Thanks guys; for keeping the forum at least somewhat sane. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can't help it, personally, I am so boring that this is all I think about ... ... also it helps that jodo isn't posting his idiotic one-liners. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Musopticon? Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 What? My pseudo-witfull oneliners aren't idiotic? kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 What? My pseudo-witfull oneliners aren't idiotic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you met Jodo, the imbecilic pseudo-eighteen-year-old ? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Darth Launch Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 What? My pseudo-witfull oneliners aren't idiotic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you met Jodo, the imbecilic pseudo-eighteen-year-old ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought he was 23 [color=gray][i]OO-TINI![/i][/color]
Musopticon? Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Yeah, I've clashed dull minds with him a few times. Not a very bright individual. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
metadigital Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 What? My pseudo-witfull oneliners aren't idiotic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you met Jodo, the imbecilic pseudo-eighteen-year-old ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought he was 23 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (Psst, he's really thirteen.) OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Darth Launch Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 What? My pseudo-witfull oneliners aren't idiotic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you met Jodo, the imbecilic pseudo-eighteen-year-old ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought he was 23 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (Psst, he's really thirteen.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That actually explains sooo much [color=gray][i]OO-TINI![/i][/color]
Darkside Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 I really hope he sees the word "Zen" and settles on fanart instead, otherwise I can see another bout of flaming on the horizon...
metadigital Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 I am an individual because no one else was born with my genes and lived the exact same life as me. Even if mathmatically someone lived in a very similiar environment with very similiar genes, they didn't do so at the same time and place as me. I think those elements make us unique individuals, but not necessarily examples of individualism. No one else is like me, but I am like everybody else: physically distinct, but socially and morally bound to what is written and considered the norm. My life is my own, but my own life falls into the cracks that others' lifes often do. I don't believe I am living for myself, and I doubt I ever will. I find myself doing things I do not want to get things I don't think I particularly need and to please people I don't like at all, hate or am afraid of letting down (if they haven't let me down in the first place, that is). Am I really that different from others? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, you sound like an individual that is constrained by the limits imposed in a society. That still doesn't preclude individualism, however. The probablility is that an individual will act in accordance with their own interests in the society, but that is still no guarantee: people still go "postal", once some internal reference threhold is triggered. I'm also an individual because I accept that reality. I don't want to accept a reality where I don't exist. Why would I? And how do you define yourself, the "I"? I'll drudge up more unfounded and ignorant opinions just for the sake of conversation, and submit that no one truly exists as an individual because we must conform to a reality that does not allow us to grow or become our true selfs, actual individuals. We are limited by self-regulations, barred by laws, we are tied by social, political and moral conventions which most of the time neuter our perceptions and desires, and confine our abilities. When we do not place regulating powers in others' hands, we are regulating ourselves. Am I a true individual considering I don't allow myself to be more? To be truly individual? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Laws also provide a structure for positive growth. The greenhouse allows more plants to grown unmolested by pests and weather than without. Othen than the fact that nihlism making me smile. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, wasted youth... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For all we know, the Existentialist Nihilist is right, and this universe ends when I die ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
EnderAndrew Posted July 10, 2005 Author Posted July 10, 2005 For all we know, the Existentialist Nihilist is right, and this universe ends when I die ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Combine that with Stephen Hawkin's theories of multiple universes and timelines and I think we can sell that theory.
Child of Flame Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 Zen Thought For Today: If man keeps hand in pocket, does wang reach out to hand, or does hand reach out to wang?
EnderAndrew Posted July 10, 2005 Author Posted July 10, 2005 Man with hand in pocket feel ****y all day long!
Child of Flame Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 Man with hand in pocket feel ****y all day long! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but does the hand, or the ****y initiate contact? More importantly, is the hand forcing itself on the ****y?
Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 You tell me. Never heard of it. Book information on Amazon.com IMDB entry Wikipedia entry It seems there are some similarities, as Darth Flatus pointed out... Hmm, you sound like an individual that is constrained by the limits imposed in a society. That still doesn't preclude individualism, however. The probablility is that an individual will act in accordance with their own interests in the society, but that is still no guarantee: people still go "postal", once some internal reference threhold is triggered. But isn't individualism the opposition to all forms of control, of authority, over the individual? My frame of mind is that my interests in society more often than not are different than my interests as an individual, if not somewhat opposed. I can't personally tell where I begin and society ends on several aspects. I find my interests are predominantly monopolized by a sense of obligation towards concepts such as family, or law; respect of structures which I find inherently flawed or self-serving as opposed to contributing to individuals or communities. Though as you say this doesn't preclude individualism; anyone in theory can live by an independent principle, and avoid society's interference with his belief, but what is the limit? It seems true, absolute individualism will always be very hard to attain. Laws also provide a structure for positive growth. The greenhouse allows more plants to grown unmolested by pests and weather than without.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> In theory mankind can also build societies which will always support and promote people's growth in a positive way, and this would ultimately be something like an utopia. But isn't this a double edged sword? Determining what is best for someone or something may not be necessarily the best. A society could allow humans to grow unmolested by radical environment, viruses, the chaos that would likely come from lack of structured, ruling hierarchy, etc.; and mankind could grow prosper and safe, but this would cost placing control in others' hands rather than our own. Note that I'm not arguing that absolute individualism is better than the positive aspects a given society can bring.
Darth Flatus Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 You tell me. Never heard of it. Book information on Amazon.com IMDB entry Wikipedia entry It seems there are some similarities, as Darth Flatus pointed out... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i did...? It was a different Darth
Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 I asked if there were similarities, and you stated that there were similarities to an extent...
Recommended Posts