Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (78750)	4/23/2000 12:48:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Oh I've been following it. It's pretty much as I stated it previously and more simply. Then I was right, you have not been following the argument. Since it is too tedious to reiterate everything, I will try to summarize: 1.)I have argued that there are other motivations than either individual or group survival that are common to humanity, and that these can be summarized as an aspiration to create a human world, one that affirms the dignity of man in distinction from other creatures, and allows for the full play of his faculties. How can you know these "motivations" don't stem from motivations for group or individual survival? You can't. 2.)I have argued that morality, especially as it has been refined with the development of civilization, seeks to reinforce such aspirations, rather than merely seeking the persistence of the species. If the "aspirations" grow out of the motivation to make the species survive then morality is reinforcing the survival of the species. Since you cannot know out of what your "aspirations" grow, again, no proof. 3.)I have argued that it is useless to try to ground such aspirations in the instinct of survival, since there expression goes well beyond any such imperative, but that it is harmless to suppose them to be "refinements" of the survival instinct. it is equally harmless or useless to suppose them what you suppose them- none of it really matters I suppose. And we have established that neither of us cares a bit about the opinions of the other. Nuff said on this point. 4.)I have argued that civilization is generally attractive to people as a result of such aspirations, and that most people relate to the idea of progress on the basis of them. Social evolution is motivated by the desire of progress HOW on earth can you suppose this to be TRUE? Assuming one could define "progress" and "desire", not the imperatives of survival LOL, what IF progress turns out to BE survival? Of course it might not, but if it DID (however you define progress) then it would be the imperative of survival that caused the desire for ...itself. What lovely circularity. We seek to improve the condition of the masses because they are human which "we" would this be?, and should not live in squalor if it can be helped. We seek to afford the greatest number access to a good lifeWE DO? Is that "we" Americans? Or we humans?, one that allows them dignity and the exercise of their faculties, and that is why, in the course of time, we develop institutions conducive to that, such as the rule of law and liberal democracy, universal education and the development of technology to minimize menial labor. In short, we try to follow the Categorical Imperative:"Never treat another human being as merely a means, but also as an end"......and if we should develop institutions (in the "course of time") that enslave everyone, if technology becomes a way to track humans and control them, will that mean you were.... wrong? That seems the corollary to your argument.