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: The Philosopher who wrote (39105)	6/4/1999 6:52:00 PM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 108807

<<< But is that fair?>>> Yup,,, nature doesn't care if we mess things up... If you don't think so ,, try sticking your hand in a fire...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (39105)	6/4/1999 7:04:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Or would you?>> I would. Here is the thing. You can define perfection a number of ways and I've asked the people here to give it a shot. Here is my attempt, take it with a grain of salt. Perfection is when every creature's needs are met absolutely and simultaneously.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (39105)	6/4/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<So I think in order to contend that nature is perfect, you have to define nature as nature WITHOUT man's interference. But is that fair?>> Doing that leads to a lot of confusion. We can know only of our observations and study of nature and so we know only of our involvement with it. The conclusion some people come up with is some pretty interesting computations about who belongs or how many, if any, as well as who doesn't belong. Self loathing is the natural outcome of that path. Be careful. Another way to look at it is to ask the question. Is there something in our human make-up that by our nature causes the things we do to screw up?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (39105)	6/4/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Is having starving children in Africa and Asia, bombing in Europe, hundreds of thousands of people in tent cities, etc. perfect?>> Fair question. The assumption being that those examples of lacking sustainance define imperfection. Yet we know that everyone living here in the land of plenty struggles and suffers in their circumstance. So, it would seem that you are saying, if we can identify suffering, then we define imperfection. What do you say to the mother of pixey and dixey who were violently slaughtered by the big bad wolf last month. That is <<WITHOUT man's interference. But is that fair?>> Does something have to be fair and just to be perfect? Is there a micro and macro level? The death of the little mice, pixey and dixey, might seem unfair to momma mouse but if we look at it at a higher level of specie adaptation; we know that the effects of the preying wolf is to strengthen the mouse herd overall. Or, is it a many sided object each having some referent of validity of its own, while only when it is understood as a whole does it make perfect sense? Is man a side to that object that must be understood in the wholeness of the thing?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (39105)	6/6/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Perfection and nature? I think this is a pointless characterization because it is essentially normative. When you talk about perfection you are once more delving into the realm of teleology. Let me be specific. All organisms reproduce their genetic material with excellent fidelity, but the fidelity is less than absolute. This allows for the creation of mutations which may or may not improve the survival of the organism, and ultimately, the species. This "imperfect" replication leads to adaptations to changing environments. It provides a dynamic method for maintaining an organism's balancing act. But organisms that become too highly adapted may become extinct because they are no longer able to adapt to a changing environment. If the milkweed were to suffer a blight, then the monarch butterfly, which, in its larval form is totally dependent on milkweed, would become extinct. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the concept of "perfection" is appealing from an aesthetic or romantic point of view, but meaningless in a scientific context. TTFN, CTC