Naw, pravnik, you deserve your very own signature line…
*Alas poor pravnik, forsooth, he forsakes truth for the cuthe.
Alas poor parvnik. * 
I agree erislover, Wittgenstein writtings give insight as to what happens when a single brilliant mind attemps to provide an answer to a universal question before the rest of the world has evolved the necessary concepts to enable a comprehensive answer. Sorta like inventing spokes before the invention of the wheel.
(Uh, sorry I baited you a tad, erislover, I, uh, had Wittgenstein slightly mixed up with Sanders Pierce. Good grief man its been 35 years! ) :smack:
What concepts, Milum?
This, or these concepts, erislover; determinate behavior or dertiminate events are very necessary axioms of human thought. That is, the progressive sequence of cause and effect is hard wired into our human minds. And with the event of our realization that the prime driving mechanism of biological evolution is simply mechanical chemistry, it becomes first apparent and then obvious to most thinkers who thought a lot during the 20th Century that social evolution was nothing more than an extention of the self-same process.
Sorry. But this new understanding of reality must transcend our knee-jerk admiration for the gargantuan efforts of the sincere and well intended philosophers of our un-enlightened past.
I wasn’t aware the matter had been settled.
Consider yourself awared.
- milum.
I have read a snippet or two from some philosophers about the subject at hand, mostly those that combat the idea that there is a direct link between evolution and evolutionary analogies and, at least, morality. The idea conflicts fairly directly with objective morality.
Shift gears, mister erislover, the 21st Century is now. Biological cells have formed into groups of biological cells which provide them a better chance of collective survival. And like the cells themselves the systems that they have evolved to enhance their chance of survival, have evolved as well. In the scheme of things, it could not be otherwise.
We humans, acting as representatives of many cell systems, have evolved systems of our own to help insure our continued existence through time. These systems are Culture, governments, mores, traditions, religions, moralities, customs, etc. Composed of words, thoughts, and concepts these systems activate or suppress our biological nature for the common good.
“Good” meaning the groups continuation through time. These “systems”, while not directly visible, are as concrete in reality as is our biology, more so in fact, they are the only building bricks that we have available to build our immediate , maybe, future.
“Objective Morality” is yet too transcendental for discussion. We haven’t evolved the words and concepts needed to integrate the idea of “objective morality” into a meaning of universal worth.
I don’t get what you’re even trying to advance here, Milum. Most of us have a rudimentary grasp of evolutionary principles. Certainly some thinkers have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to export evolution from biology to other arenas, like circuit design (with startling results), psychology (with results I’m not aware of), sociology, and Eris knows what else. While I’m sure this is really quite fascinating, it does not answer some core questions, and probably secondary questions, and maybe even farther than that.
Evolution is simply an explantion of change in some shifting context or other over time. Evolution cannot answer questions about morality, for example, unless we make the assumption that “good” means “survives” and I think you’ll have a hard time getting that one across to a captive audience, unless a la the Nazis you actually hold them captive. Evolution cannot answer questions about “best”, for another example. It provides a mechanism whereby some population survives due to fortunate mutations… maybe. There is no requirement that it always enable a species to survive. There is no requirement that what is a beneficial mutation now always be beneficial, and similarly, what is detrimental now might not always be detrimental.
Evolution is a fascinating subject, but its application to philosophy is small. Its impact on social sciences, as I understand it, is growing. Its impact on other fields are interesting, inasmuch as we can create “evolutionary” pressures to fit our needs (intelligent design has a place, you see). But philosophy? I’m sorry, I don’t see it. I’ll need more from you than the assertion that we don’t have the concepts yet (a claim I find rather… difficult to support, but I’m patient enough to wait for you to come up with something if you can).
Ah Ha!
Now I get it! You, erislover, have a hang-up! And your hang-up is your misunderstanding of the nature of general semantics. You think that words like “evolution” “good” “bad”, and “book” have definite meanings, which they don’t.
Mmm…? This might be a challenge worthy of a lengthy book. But what the heck, call me the fool, but I’ll do my best to win over your nice pedantic heart in a single post.
Tomorrow.
Of course, if words have no definite meaning, including “definite”, then maybe they do have definite meanings… 
No, I do not think words have definite meanings. We should not, however, make the mistake of suggesting that they have no meaning by virtue of this pseudo-gap. Words might not have infinitely precise meanings, but we normally notice no lack of precision in their use and for good reason.
I am not afraid of using any word, so long as I am reasonably sure I am using it correctly.
The computers are all “von Neumann machines” and John von Neumann introduced game theory to economics in 1944. We can combine multiple lines of thought.
Tranactional Analysis from the book
Since all computers are “von Neumann machines” and John von Neumann introduced game theory to economics in 1944 we can have a game philosophy that includes multiple influences.
Transactional Analysis from the book THE GAMES PEOPLE PLAY
Ideas from Sun Tzu’s THE ART OF WAR
Socrates was killed as a result of political power games.
Malcolm X was killed as a result of religious power games.
And of course Machiavelli can’t be left out.
There is lots of pseudointellectual word gaming used to confuse people so that is just another strategy in the game. The Whorfian hypothesis, language affects thought. That can screw up ones logic.
von Neumanism anyone
Dal Timgar
P.S. If you research von Neumann’s life he was obviously a Vulcan.
don`t know if this helps anybody,but i liked it.
“religion without philosophy is simply sentimentality,or fanatacism,
and philosophy without religion, is only speculation”
a.c. bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada.
Touche’, erislover. Now let us use some of these more-or-less indefinite words to see if the use of them can lead us to a logical conclusion. A conclusion, although indefinite, that will direct us towards a workable philosophy that will help keep us from descending into anarchy in this 21st Century.
But first; do you agree to the following parameters of discussion? If so we can keep our information exchange pertinent and succinct.
(1) * “With Firstman’s sowing Lastman did reap.” - Omar Khayyam*
For the purposes of our discussion the Universe is Deterministic.
(2) * “All I know is what I have words for.” - L. Wittgenstein*
Religion and outre meta-physics are to be left to a later discussion.
(3) *“I am in a sorry state, for I do not even know what I do not know.”
- Saint Augustine*
By delimiting what we don’t know we can get closer to that which is true.
(4)* That unseeing eye, reminds me of a midnight’s dream
it reminds me of somebody that I have never seen
- Sonny Boy Williamson*
Nothing. I just happen to like Sonny Boy Williamson.
Let’s keep it lively and light.
I outright disagree with 3 in a practical sense, and maybe even in a more abstract sense. 2 contradicts 1.
Ok, irislover, for being so obstinate you get your 21st Century philosophy cold turkey. No frills, no introduction. You get the short version. Here goes…
Cause and effect, in an ever progressive sequence, is the perceived quality of the Universe that we animals who call ourselves human are obliged to conduct our everyday affairs in. We have no choice, that is the way our sensors work, as well as the way sensory information is sorted out in our brains.In other words, pragmatically we live in a Universe that is deterministic.
Inanimate matter, that is the dust from which we evolved and to which one day we as biology, might trump death and so transcend our dusty origins. But not today, maybe in a couple of billion years.
Ok, irislover, for being so obstinate you get your 21st Century philosophy cold turkey. No frills, no introduction. You get the short version. Here goes…
Cause and effect, in an ever progressive sequence, is the perceived quality of the Universe that we animals who call ourselves human are obliged to conduct our everyday affairs in. We have no choice, that is the way our sensors work, as well as the way sensory information is sorted out in our brains.In other words, pragmatically we live in a Universe that is deterministic.
Inanimate matter, that is the dust from which we evolved and to which one day we as biology, might trump death and so transcend our dusty origins. But not today, maybe in a couple of billion years.
until then, we had best examine the direction that life is taking us so that we might consciously aid in assuring that we complete the momentous trip. This requires that we examine ourselves, now and in the past. This much is known…
We are social animals, animals who hunt in packs, who for 99.9999% of their development existed only as an appendage of the pack. To live outside the social structure of the clan meant certain death. But in fact the clan itself was the animal. The clan or tribe or nation or culture was that which continued through time, not the lone individual.
Make that 100%. All of our development has been shaped by our lives as a bound servant to the customs of the pack. And as we speak they are getting even more so. We have no choice; it is the only game in town. One day soon, maybe this Century, all the myriad cultures of Earth will fuse into single Earth Culture and that single Earth Creature will be known throughout the civilized Universe as the MIlum.
until then, we had best examine the direction that life is taking us so that we might consciously aid in assuring that we complete the momentous trip. This requires that we examine ourselves, now and in the past. This much is known…
We are social animals, animals who hunt in packs, who for 99.9999% of our development we existed only as an appendage of the pack. To live outside the social structure of the clan meant certain death. But in fact the clan itself was the animal. The clan or tribe or nation or culture was that which continued through time, not the lone individual.
Make that 100%. All of our development has been shaped by our lives as a bound servant to the customs of the pack. And as we speak they are getting even more so. We have no choice; it is the only game in town. One day soon, maybe this Century, all the myriad cultures of Earth will fuse into single Earth Culture and that single Earth Creature will be known throughout the civilized Universe as the** MIlum**.
** Opps…sorry. See? That’s what happen when you try to be a smart ass.!**
Ok, this version is much better…(er, I hope I didn’t leave anything out)
Ok,** irislover**, for being so obstinate you get your 21st Century philosophy cold turkey. No frills, no introduction. You get the short version. Here goes…
Cause and effect, in an ever progressive sequence, is the perceived quality of the Universe that we animals who call ourselves human are obliged to conduct our everyday affairs in. We have no choice, that is the way our sensors work, as well as the way sensory information is sorted out in our brains.In other words, pragmatically we live in a Universe that is deterministic.
Inanimate matter, that is the dust from which we evolved and to which one day we as biology, might trump death and so we might transcend our dusty origins. But not today, maybe in a couple of billion years.
Until then, we had best examine the direction that life is taking us so that we might consciously aid in assuring that we complete the momentous trip. This requires that we examine ourselves, now and in the past. This much is known…
We are social animals, animals who hunt in packs, who for 99.9999% of their development existed only as an appendage of the pack. To live outside the social structure of the clan meant certain death. But in fact the clan itself was the animal. The clan or tribe or nation or culture was that which continued through time, not the lone individual.
Make that 100%. All of our development has been shaped by our lives as a bound servant to the customs of the pack. And as we speak they are getting even more so. We have no choice; it is the only game in town. One day soon, maybe this Century, all the myriad cultures of Earth will fuse into single Earth Culture and that single Earth Creature will be known throughout the civilized Universe as the** MIlum**.
Then I’m sure you understand why I have no choice but to disagree.
I have to say I am not a cultural relativist, nor do I take such a rosy view to progression as you seem to. In order to, as you say, “consciously aid” what I suppose you are suggesting is some sort of teleological view of evolution, we must understand it. 1) How do we consciously direct ourselves inside of a deterministic framework? Does evolution answer this question?
A more interesting question is that of an epistemological hierarchy. 2) If our culture (be that my local subculture or humanity in general, take your pick) is all that we have and sets the limits on what we conceive, then how do we ever get to talk of anything at a level higher (more abstract, or more encompassing, or whatever) and have it be meaningful?
3) Does this teleological view of evolution have any limits beyond which there is still meaningful dialogue, questions we may ask and answers we may seek? How are we to actually answer this question? 3a) Does evolution provide the answer?
What drives this conclusion?
erislover :Who is the smart ass now?
** erislover**: “Then I’m sure you understand why I have no choice but to disagree.”
Milum: Of course you have no choice but to disagree, erislover, but as these words slowly pull switches and levers within your antiquated belief system you will soon have no choice but to agree.
erislover: I have to say I am not a cultural relativist, nor do I take such a rosy view to progression as you.
- How do we consciously direct ourselves inside of a deterministic framework? Does evolution answer this question?
Milum: Don’t worry about it, we will continue to believe in our deterministic minds that we are consciously directing ourselves towards the purpose of our existence whether we are or not.
Evolution, on the other hand, doesn’t answer anything. Evolution is mindless. Like it or not, we are the only instruments of answering universal questions.
erislover: A more interesting question is that of an epistemological hierarchy.
2) If our culture (be that my local subculture or humanity in general, take your pick) is all that we have and sets the limits on what we conceive, then how do we ever get to talk of anything at a level higher (more abstract, or more encompassing, or whatever) and have it be meaningful?
Milum: How did you ever abstract that idea from my admittedly somewhat chopped statement about the cultural regulation of human actions and thoughts?
Limits on the human imagination and the breath of thought set by cultural constraints would be self-inhibiting and antithetical to the effectiveness of the ongoing process, in name → evolution.
erislover: 3) Does this teleological view of evolution have any limits beyond which there is still meaningful dialog, questions we may ask and answers we may seek? How are we to actually answer this question?
Milum: No. The inching recognition of what is not the path to the realization of the purpose of the existence of “something; rather than nothing” is the most that we can realistically expect to realize in the times just ahead. Later, maybe, further on down the road, we might be able to began to answer the question you so desperately seek and need answered.
erislover: 3a) Does evolution provide the answer?
Milum: Your own compelling need to find an answer to the ultimate question of why we, or anything else, exists goes far in explaining why you asked this question twice.
erislover: What drives this conclusion?
Milum : Humor, erislover, …maybe.