Election

[taks]

Collectivistic and individualistic which makes up to...uuuhh... humane?

in other words "oh, you're right, i did claim you didn't understand." gotcha. at least i admitted when i misstated something in one of these threads, ahem...

 

anyway, that doesn't address the point i made that you don't really have support for these two things simultaneously and globally. as i noted, your concept is at best controversial, at worst not accepted at all.

 

Well, this ultimate selflissness was my view for a long while, but I've abandonded it. It would be way off-topic why and is tied to many other worldview changes happening to me (biggest being shift from atheist to theistically/deistically inclined agnostic)

good for you. never was my way except for my family and friends, but i get something in return for that. i decided probably before you were born there was no god. sorry.

 

then again, are you saying empathic = collectivistic?

disingenuous again. you can be empathetic (i think empathic would be like that chick on star trek) without favoring collectivism. collectivism is forced. empathy is not. charity is empathetic, but not in anyway collectivist.

 

Then again, capitalism too is something that must be learned

not really. capitalism is actually just an observation of free markets, which exist naturally. it's not a system per se, as much as it is an observation of a system (with an expectation of protected rights).

 

well, me neither

 

and I learned about this in class or from mag, not from wikipedia

i saw the 75% thing mentioned somewhere on wiki...

 

taks

[Xard]

Collectivistic and individualistic which makes up to...uuuhh... humane?

in other words "oh, you're right, i did claim you didn't understand." gotcha. at least i admitted when i misstated something in one of these threads, ahem...

 

anyway, that doesn't address the point i made that you don't really have support for these two things simultaneously and globally. as i noted, your concept is at best controversial, at worst not accepted at all.

 

No, because you deny collectivistic side and accept only individualistic side.

 

To make it absolutely clear: I represent Andism and you Either Orism.

 

Andism > Either Orism

 

Well, this ultimate selflissness was my view for a long while, but I've abandonded it. It would be way off-topic why and is tied to many other worldview changes happening to me (biggest being shift from atheist to theistically/deistically inclined agnostic)

good for you. never was my way except for my family and friends, but i get something in return for that. i decided probably before you were born there was no god. sorry.

 

Well, I'm still and propably will stay as agnostic (and I fought even against this shift for weeks! Heaven forbid I actually had become believer...) so I don't base my thinking on any religious reasons here.

 

then again, are you saying empathic = collectivistic?

disingenuous again. you can be empathetic (i think empathic would be like that chick on star trek) without favoring collectivism. collectivism is forced. empathy is not. charity is empathetic, but not in anyway collectivist.

 

Yeah, I agree. That's why I put but I really didn't get point you were trying to make

Then again, capitalism too is something that must be learned

not really. capitalism is actually just an observation of free markets, which exist naturally. it's not a system per se, as much as it is an observation of a system (with an expectation of protected rights).

 

Market and trade aren't something that exist naturally, they're still manmade things.

 

well, me neither

 

and I learned about this in class or from mag, not from wikipedia

i saw the 75% thing mentioned somewhere on wiki...

 

taks

 

Ahh, I just took that from thin air but funny if it was correct

[taks]

No, because you deny collectivistic side and accept only individualistic side.

and as i have noted, the two things existing simultaneously are at best controversial, at worst simply not true. your opinion, while it may be shared by chomsky, isn't really valid in any of the realms you mentioned that i don't understand. maybe there is some new movement i haven't heard of. maybe it's just something that spreads among you third way folks.

 

Yeah, I agree. That's why I put but I really didn't get point you were trying to make

at this point, who knows.

 

Market and trade aren't something that exist naturally, they're still manmade things.

trade does (bartering, actually), which ultimately results in the market. children instinctively trade with one another. you should sit and watch a room full of 2-year olds once.

 

Ahh, I just took that from thin air but funny if it was correct

no, it looked strikingly similar to something i read somewhere today.

 

of course, i'm supposed to be thinking about advanced radar topics. sheesh.

 

taks

[random n00b]

As for empathy it is more natural state than nonempathy. There's exceptions to everything of course. But you making behaviourist claim that empathy is merely outcome of upbringing is false.

Don't confuse "more prevalent" with "more natural". Again, it's the fact that most people are raised in social environments that makes the development of social skills something common. Empathy among them. Yes, it is just another social skill. Yes, it has its uses. But so does shaving, and is the need for a good shave "natural"?

 

The ability to produce speech is an even better example. I'm not talking about learning a language, but the adaptation that is being able to produce any kind of speech. Feral children have been known to be unable to develop this ability fully, or at all in some cases. The child didn't need it in the environment she grew in, so she didn't develop it. Again, versatility.

 

 

It is closely tied to morality and that is still great mystery for us.

Empathy is closely tied to morality? Where do you get this from? Empathy has been a trait present in humans for as long as we have been humans. Morality hasn't, and that's not even taking into consideration the plastic and malleable nature (heh) of morality.

 

Nah. Morality is simply a framework that's set in place so that people can have something to operate by while living in community. It's the last line of defense against chaos.

 

 

And simple explanations like that are very lacking.

Oh yeah, I'll give you that. Unfortunately, understanding of these things isn't exactly deep or abundant. I'm no exception.

 

 

How come that human mind is quickly deteoriated under circumstances when he lacks connection to other human beings, why loneliness drives so many people mad etc. Socialising is uppermost need of human psyche.

Deteriorated? Mad? Not exactly. The human mind isn't "deteriorated" by lack of contact with other people. It simply adapts differently. Of course, everyone around us has a similar socialized mindset, so "feral" people are strange. That doesn't mean their minds are "deteriorated". But there's also the fact that humans pose the most complex problems for humans. Without the need to solve these problems in a constant basis, the mind loses that ability... just like astronauts can't walk on their own after a prolonged stay in space.

 

And I don't accept that people go mad because of loneliness. It's not loneliness by itself that drives people mad. In some cases it's rejection. In others, self-loathing and a feeling of unfitness. But all have in common that they are being deprived of something their mind has grown accustomed to, essentially from birth.

 

 

If people were group animals only due to survival it would be easy to see modern man - with secured survival - leaving humans far behind. No pets or other such creatures could follow him to his destination either. He'd be utterly alone but with secured survival and very good quality of material aspects of life. He wouldn't need anything at all. Let's also suppose return to society would be harmful for his survival, say there's riots going on in the city and other anarchistic activities.

No, for two reasons. The first is that living in society is an inherited custom. Leaving everything behind would just be too alien. Our mind, as it's been configured, isn't prepared for that. And the second reason is that it's still more efficient for everything to live in communities than alone. Perhaps in time this will change... there was a Foundation chapter by Asimov that explored that idea. But for the time being, there is a practical reason to live with others.

 

 

Man being social animal is "inbuilt" aspect of either our brain or mind, it doesn't matter much which one's. Point stays.

No. All you have is circumstantial evidence to support that. It may be easy for humans to develop the skills needed to live as social animals, but as I said before, it's also very easy to teach a dog how to fetch. That doesn't guarantee anything about "inbuilt" behaviors or anything of the sort.

 

 

However "Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well" this is just shaky and bad application of simplified darwinism in situation where it doesn't work.

Yes, yes. You keep saying "X doesn't work" and "Z is false", but you never get around to explaining how or why. Arguments, please.

 

 

Reminds me of theory that altruism is explained by showing off to neighbours and thereby getting more sex made by some "clever" evolutionary psychologist/biologist *facepalm*

*Ahem*

 

Arguments, not misrepresentations or association fallacies, please.

[Gorth]

You guys need a general "Philosphy and Ethics" thread

[random n00b]

HA! Like that would prevent the debate from spilling over to other threads.

[Gorth]

(In a deep voice): "I have a dream..."

 

I seem to remember that we had a philosophy thread four years ago, and then one about a few years ago. It's surprising what people can disagree on

[Humodour]

Is taks still randomly accusing people of being socialists? Oh goodie!