Wait, did you just refer to yourself in third person?
And yes, if that person you’re referring to is someone like Charles fucking Manson, you SHOULD be dismissing everything they say. Jesus Christ.
It’s not the crazy that is the problem with his argument, it’s the logic. Every new species is technically the result of a defect. We can only judge how good or bad that mutation was by whether the species survives or not. Humans have. Then we’ve gone on to create written language, whereby we can learn from what people have written thousands of years ago. No other species has done that.
There are all kinds of valid arguments you can make about humans being a complex mix of rationality and base instinct that leads to some very strange behaviour. There are many things we still don’t know about how our brains work, and other problems we do know about but can’t fix. Whatever small kernel of truth you might find in what he’s written might be found along those lines. Most of it is just stuff designed to tug at your emotions rather than make you think. The conclusion that humans are a genetic defect is either so trivially true that it’s true about every other multi celled organism, or plainly false given our dominance as a species.
Are we defective? Let’s say not optimally designed. “God has to be a civil engineer – who else would run a waste disposal pipeline through a perfectly good recreational area?”
That addresses children, and probably only very young children. Try teaching lazyass teens or adults and they’ll leave out as much as possible. It balances out.
It’s been debunked above, but I want to cite a Jane Goodall documentary were one young adult chimp stopped eating or interacting after his mother died. He died before he got over it.
Neuroscientists call the creation of interior models of the world “mapping.” Mapping is a necessary and unavoidable process when dealing with the world on more than a stimulus/response basis. The more accurate a brain’s ability to map the world around it, the more accurately the brain’s owner can respond to the world. I do not believe that humans have inferior mapping, compared to other creatures.
Let’s see. Only humans use language. So only humans can talk about their perception of themselves. Do you believe that other creatures have self-perception? Because if they don’t, they can’t apply what they don’t have and the claim about humans is meaningless.
Assuming some animals have self-perception, how do you know that they aren’t “directing negative perception of Self, upon himself”? Packs have hierarchies. If a low level pack member always defers to higher level members, isn’t it acting on a negative perception of self? If two males begin a challenge for access to a female, and one backs away because the other is bigger and has a deeper bellow, isn’t he acting on a negative perception of self?
But isn’t that just poisoning the well?
Perhaps so. However, it is valid to spend your limited time thinking judiciously. If Charles Manson has something to say that disagrees with what most generally held to be credible people say, then you should maybe spend that thinking time studying the writings of Richard Feynman instead.
Also, you’re guilty of another fallacy. Just because a person is using a logical fallacy doesn’t make their argument incorrect.
Here’s the thing. The key argument that you should really use to free your mind of this bullshit, and whatever else you run into in the future is :
a. Are the ideas of this author empirically testable? That is, if I write that F=ma and the reason the apple falls is from the mass of the earth, there are millions of experimental tests that can be performed to check I’m legit. No bullshit logical fallacies need be consulted.
b. Are the ideas of this author supported by evidence? We’re pretty damn sure that gravity pulls stuff down because we have a fuckton of evidence. We’re pretty sure that wealth inequality is increasing, because the IRS is able to just directly see and report people’s income levels. We aren’t sure what “pain” is or happiness or various other ephemeral qualities, though we have a hunch that we can figure it out by decoding the internal signals of the brain.
c. Are the ideas of this author supported by credible peers?
Don’t waste your time with stuff that doesn’t meet a,b, and c if you want to spend your limited time alive efficiently.
How does that approach work for you in the realm of philosophy?
It tells you that philosophy is useless and a waste of your time unless the ideas of it can be converted to testable predictions, experiments can be performed, and some level of agreement between experts can be reached.
There are theories in psychology, for example, on what attitudes a healthy person with high reported happiness tends to have. They are gathered by asking people who are considered healthy and happy and gradually correlating the measured trends. You could eventually arrive at an empirically determined set of philosophies for life that have a better probability than chance of being helpful.
But just general naval gazing and writing profound bits of bullshit like famous philosophers of the past? Useless.
Without Karl Poppers useless naval gazing you would never have thought to apply your a and b to anything.
That doesn’t really answer the question though. It also doesn’t really address the question of whether to write such things off or not.
Yes: Republicans exist.
Kind of an irrelevant point