.
Gamma musings
.
Only the most myopic of logical positivists would ever assert that "unproven" ideals cannot be justifiably believed in contrast to "scientific rationality." Axiomatic systems exist and function very well. If formatted correctly they have a much clearer focus than some empirically-derived system. Besides that point, many ideals transcend the bounds of what is scientifically observable and thus are arguably neither provable nor unprovable.
Anyways, @ your quoted post:
Which is to be preferred, indulgence in the vastness of recorded human knowledge or being forced to rediscover it at a much slower pace? Humans, as a species, pass on their knowledge, often through several years of schooling. What is the difference between this and information obtained electronically? Sure, one may not by any means need this information, but why would preference for each member of society learning their own role and not expending resources they don't need to be prioritized over free consumption of idea?
I have my own set of ideals. One of these ideals is what may be considered individualism in most senses of the word. There's enough dystopian novels hinging around the premise of a rigid caste system. (Brave New World, Anthem, 1984, Animal Farm, anyone?) Another one of my ideals is that the unique sentience of human beings sets them above other animals. The castes are for the ants to survive, not for arguably free-willed homo sapiens. This boom in technology is a boon to the species. Life is made easier. Times have changed and values of old are slowly dying out, but needs are still being met. Technology has been willingly accepted by the majority of those who can. Excluding the view that humans are inherently dangerous and malign for themselves, this widespread acceptance is a sign advancement. The raw materials of the Earth have been transformed into more valuable goods.
Inner worlds can still change. The battlefields of these worlds simply don't start on the same front.
As a final note, what good were we ever good for? Is their an objective purpose beyond simply advancing natural processes? What more can be asked than for someone to advance their own subjective goals? We succeed because we are capable of doing what we desire to do.
Forces exist. To morally judge them would be to take them out of their context. So what if your former values have lost meaning now? Pursue who you have become or shape who you want to be. There is no shame in being the product of fully conscious choices of oneself. To be oneself is to be oneself, nothing more. The past is gone and is no longer anything more than an imprint for the present day and ultimately the future. Change is not the enemy by any means. Denial of change is the ultimate delusion.
My post wasn't as much a refute for yours as it was my own thoughts on the subjects addressed.
I think I'm going to like you.
Rest assured, you'll lose that impression with time. However, to keep up the illusion of being partly cordial, I'll take the compliment.
You seem decently intelligent as well. Definitely able to compose a concise response in a short amount of time.
There's no way to get through life without the healthy ability of being able to bullshit. But I must now, as any reasonable person would, be highly suspicious of your sincerity in fast responses in light of your confession highlighted above.Originally Posted by aixelsyd
Although, I'm not sure if I care about the sincerity of comments made from relative strangers who can't be any sort of judge on my true character.
That, or I'm just making this whole post to guard my insecurities.
Pick your poison.
Mm /disagree, most of us still live like animals.
@OP's distress; if you're thinking on a regular basis you're going to end up having to prove yourself wrong so you can move to the next step which instilled doubts in the first place. Staying in one spot for too long is a sign that you're doing something wrong because there is no system that encompasses all things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote