|
On February 12 2009 09:39 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2009 08:37 minus_human wrote:On February 12 2009 08:21 daz wrote:On February 12 2009 07:56 minus_human wrote:
do you understand the difference between 'number' and PERCENTAGE?
just drop it
. I understand that you mean that the 'number' of all humans will increase, but why would the 'number' of humans increasing result in a smaller PERCENTAGE of 'really advanced persons'. I am not trying to insult you. If just the number of people increases, the percentage should stay the same, it should not increase by default. It was my theory, the first supposition, that this percentage will shrink. I wasn't a logical conclusion or anything, it was something I wanted to debate. And stop inventing things you think I might have wanted to say of course the percentage should stay the same by default. And yet you state that it wont. But you fail to explain why. You failed to even attempt to explain why, you just said it. I didnt invent something that you might have wanted to say, i was trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and I still haven't figured it out. It's not really a theory if there is absolutely no reasoning at all behind it. Oh and P.S. dont be a fucking pussy and say weren't trying to insult me just because your insult was a horrible failure. Have the guts to admit you were being confrontational
You STILL don't get it. Despite all my pompous talking, Chef here seems to have no problem with it. I'll let the facts speak, and also, I actually tried to explain myself like three times only to realize now you don't get it because you're either stupid or just plain stubborn. Don't you see how faulty it is to try and prove me wrong by just repeating that you don't understand? If my silly smart talk was too much for you, but you still intuited that it's not that sophisticated at all you should have just quote it and post 'jibberish' like that other guy did.
Watch your language. If I would have wanted to confront someone like you it would have been obvious. But especially after your last post, I really don't care what you do or say so w/e
|
On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events.
do you mean direct cause instead of result, if so then i'd agree
On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive
Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.
This is pretty much what Heidegger calls meaning found in our everyday practices which covers up that our being (Dasein) is by default, meaningless. I don't necessarily agree with Heidegger but your premise whether intentional or not is well-founded.
|
On February 12 2009 09:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events. do you mean direct cause instead of result, if so then i'd agree Show nested quote +On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive
Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly. This is pretty much what Heidegger calls meaning found in our everyday practices which covers up that our being (Dasein) is by default, meaningless. I don't necessarily agree with Heidegger but your premise whether intentional or not is well-founded.
Amen. I actually meant result, since I consider the tendencies which have dictated human evolution (seeking to organize tribes, cities, and eventually nations and modern societies) a result of the fact that we became intelligent and aware of each other.
I don't quite understand how it could be the other way around, because if the desire to be organized led to intelligence gain, then why did such a desire exist in the first place, and what could have been its causes, if not intelligence? (as people organized themselves into more complex structures, a human generated stimuli for the intellect to evolve was created, but I don't think this caused its initial appearance - this if of course valid if you take into consideration some sort of biological evolution theory, and not creationism)
Thanks for the feedback, but I believe you are more educated in the sense that I'm unaware of the philosophers/thinking systems you refer to
|
Man...I went and did some RL stuff for a while...now I come back on TL, and I can't follow what's going on at all in this thread anymore...
|
On February 12 2009 10:26 PH wrote:
Man...I went and did some RL stuff for a while...now I come back on TL, and I can't follow what's going on at all in this thread anymore...
All kinds of shit happened. Really heavy trolling, wannabe serious discussions, jokingly swearing, serious swearing, serious discussions, more trolling, and some random one-liners
|
Religion has been the source of many of the essential, fundamental, and developmental evolutions of humanity. However it has now become more of a burden in its quintessential form (God created the world in 6 days, garden of Eden, Jesus being the son of God, etc.). Provide a counter-argument for this statement.
|
On February 12 2009 10:07 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2009 09:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
Seeking order in everything remains instinctual to the populace of man. It is a direct result of conscience and intelligence gain since prehistoric times, due to the incapacity of interpreting the Universe differently than narrowed-sighted ordinate strings of ideas and events. do you mean direct cause instead of result, if so then i'd agree On February 12 2009 06:30 minus_human wrote:
For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence. When not found, they are created or more often borrowed from each other and propagated within their societies – participant mechanism to the birth of religions. Exceptions from this desire of goal still remain only those who are intellectually inferior, thus allowing the mechanical necessities of their biological life to overwhelm their existence.
Solutions for this intricate innate self-deluding process prove extremely elusive
Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly. This is pretty much what Heidegger calls meaning found in our everyday practices which covers up that our being (Dasein) is by default, meaningless. I don't necessarily agree with Heidegger but your premise whether intentional or not is well-founded. Amen. I actually meant result, since I consider the tendencies which have dictated human evolution (seeking to organize tribes, cities, and eventually nations and modern societies) a result of the fact that we became intelligent and aware of each other. I don't quite understand how it could be the other way around, because if the desire to be organized led to intelligence gain, then why did such a desire exist in the first place, and what could have been its causes, if not intelligence? (as people organized themselves into more complex structures, a human generated stimuli for the intellect to evolve was created, but I don't think this caused its initial appearance - this if of course valid if you take into consideration some sort of biological evolution theory, and not creationism) Thanks for the feedback, but I believe you are more educated in the sense that I'm unaware of the philosophers/thinking systems you refer to
I'm like 90% sure of this, if anyone can disprove me please do so, but linguists, if you consider them an authority on the study of the human mind, generally agree that the basic "structures" of the human mind has not changed since the Cro-Magnon man. The "intelligence gain" you perceive comes from the apparent progression of the human sciences, and whether or not there has indeed been a progression has become a greatly debated topic in and since 20th century philosophy.
Therefore if the (western) human mind has remained unchanged since like 40,000 BC, then this will to order or will to knowledge you describe could only have been there since the beginning of civilization.
edit: I wiki'd cro-magnon man and found this:
A 2003 study on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, published by an Italo-Spanish research team led by David Caramelli, concluded that Neanderthals were far outside the modern human range, while Cro-Magnons were well in the average of modern Europeans. mtDNA retrieved from two Cro-Magnon specimens was identified as Haplogroup N. [5] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and its descendant haplogroups are found among modern Eurasian and Native American populations. [6].
|
do you want me to trash your fucking lights?
|
On February 12 2009 10:51 BalliSLife wrote:
do you want me to trash your fucking lights?
You don't really want to "trash my fucking lights." You are merely acting out as a form of rebellion against your family members and those close to you. You are doing this by mocking a popular figure known as Christian Bale, who played the character Batman in the movie The Dark Knight. By imagining yourself as Batman, you are hiding from the authorities (your family members), and doing what you believe is right, despite their disliking of your actions.
|
On February 12 2009 09:49 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2009 09:39 daz wrote:On February 12 2009 08:37 minus_human wrote:On February 12 2009 08:21 daz wrote:On February 12 2009 07:56 minus_human wrote:
do you understand the difference between 'number' and PERCENTAGE?
just drop it
. I understand that you mean that the 'number' of all humans will increase, but why would the 'number' of humans increasing result in a smaller PERCENTAGE of 'really advanced persons'. I am not trying to insult you. If just the number of people increases, the percentage should stay the same, it should not increase by default. It was my theory, the first supposition, that this percentage will shrink. I wasn't a logical conclusion or anything, it was something I wanted to debate. And stop inventing things you think I might have wanted to say of course the percentage should stay the same by default. And yet you state that it wont. But you fail to explain why. You failed to even attempt to explain why, you just said it. I didnt invent something that you might have wanted to say, i was trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and I still haven't figured it out. It's not really a theory if there is absolutely no reasoning at all behind it. Oh and P.S. dont be a fucking pussy and say weren't trying to insult me just because your insult was a horrible failure. Have the guts to admit you were being confrontational You STILL don't get it. Despite all my pompous talking, Chef here seems to have no problem with it. I'll let the facts speak, and also, I actually tried to explain myself like three times only to realize now you don't get it because you're either stupid or just plain stubborn. Don't you see how faulty it is to try and prove me wrong by just repeating that you don't understand? If my silly smart talk was too much for you, but you still intuited that it's not that sophisticated at all you should have just quote it and post 'jibberish' like that other guy did. Watch your language. If I would have wanted to confront someone like you it would have been obvious. But especially after your last post, I really don't care what you do or say so w/e
its not that i dont get it, i get exactly what your trying to say, im trying to show how fucking stupid it is to just assert something and then not provide any reasoning at all for it. No one can argue against the statement you made because you didnt provide any reasoning at all for that statement. maybe if you actually used your fucking head instead of stringing together big words that you dont fully undestand but heard spewed at you in school, you would be able to articulate something worthwhile. And again, dont tell me that implying i dont know the difference between numbers and percentage wasnt an attempted insult, because thats just bullshit. quit being a pussy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i counted 5~ untidy things you did in the first paragraph, but it is on a dated topic, not interesting at all. religion is just uninteresting, except the problem of understanding belief/ideology against a functional evolutionary history.
given your displayed lack of sensitivity to this problem, i dont find your stuff all that good.
let us look at an example,
"For nurturing of their own psychic, humans, when related to their social groups, still need cause as well as purpose for their existence."
you assert that the phenomenon in bold arises from the action of "nurturing own psychic" (psyche is the right word), however, this is an inversion of explanatory cache. to modern readers, the most certain thing in this sentence is the phenomenon in bold. this experience is understood as "feeding your mind," as popular slogans go. the supposed explanation for this concrete phenomenon is an unqualified action, carried out by "humans," intentionally. you are explaining something well understood by the workings of a universal, abstract and misspelled tendency, your explanation is about as productive as plato's theory of forms.
let me clean up your sentence somewhat, "humans have a function of nurturing psyche, and thus they want meaning in their existence." you are trying to explain a part of human nature, but you have posited a human subject floating outside of history, a subject that has a certain property, a tendency/desire/function/need to nurture psyche, and on this bare asserted property you derive the human nature of "need purpose for existence." how do you know this ability to nurture psyche exists, and if it exists, isn't its existence the bigger problem. the phenomenon in bold is a worldview that is typical of until recently very rare iconoclasts. you need to argue for its universality and transcendence in order to justify your unqualified use of "need." a need to nurture psyche cannot exist without a need of purpose, given the particular worldview you are working from, your 'argument' is not only a priori but circular.
so yea it is pretty bad. i suggest further lurking.
|
i dont know the sources where minus_human got his premises from, but Michel Foucault's "The Order of Things", as sort of an afterthought to the central thesis, argues that a will to order is indeed a fundamental drive in man. He never really fully articulates this thought but it is undeniably Nietzschean and linked to the will to power.
|
oneofthem remember when you talked about how bertrand russell already has the idea of the table and therefore its properties in his mind when he talks about the self-evidence of the idea of the table, have you read anything that talks about that or no.
|
I'm glad my blog was the most popular of the day. My e-penis just grew 6 inches!
Discuss.
|
You're a bloody terrorist and I will beat you up at BC.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2009 12:12 zulu_nation8 wrote:
oneofthem remember when you talked about how bertrand russell already has the idea of the table and therefore its properties in his mind when he talks about the self-evidence of the idea of the table, have you read anything that talks about that or no.
hm, i guess sellars, although i dont think your paraphrase is accurate. russell's sense datum theory is roundly criticised, look at sellars and the myth of the given for one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
human narratives are intentional, with actors and such. they presume categories of meaning. if you want to explain why people find stuff meaningful, your explanation can't invoke faculties of meaning. it would be circular. the explanation is just an expression of the result.
loli: why can people see grass?
mom: because grass is green.
someone who can't see will not be able to understand the explanation. the explanation is not itself terribly wrong, it is just presuming seeing, in the way of human experience. it does not explain seeing causally in a more universal manner. similarly with religion, i think the explanation for religion should tackle its significance, its magnetic hold. but when your explanation presumes such a significance, like say positing a category of the sacred etc, and then make religion the expression of that inner sanctum of significance, then you have merely paraphrased religion, translated it to a different language. compare that to an explanation that explain significance as a biological function of behavior adjustment. that at least jives with the materialistic, behavioristic evolutionary origin of life.
|
On February 12 2009 12:34 Dknight wrote:
You're a bloody terrorist and I will beat you up at BC.
EFF YOU TRAILER TRASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2-0 this year. GG
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
who is a better receiver, larry fitzgerald or lebron
|
On February 12 2009 12:48 oneofthem wrote:
human narratives are intentional, with actors and such. they presume categories of meaning. if you want to explain why people find stuff meaningful, your explanation can't invoke faculties of meaning. it would be circular. the explanation is just an expression of the result.
loli: why can people see grass?
mom: because grass is green.
someone who can't see will not be able to understand the explanation. the explanation is not itself terribly wrong, it is just presuming seeing, in the way of human experience. it does not explain seeing causally in a more universal manner. similarly with religion, i think the explanation for religion should tackle its significance, its magnetic hold. but when your explanation presumes such a significance, like say positing a category of the sacred etc, and then make religion the expression of that inner sanctum of significance, then you have merely paraphrased religion, translated it to a different language. compare that to an explanation that explain significance as a biological function of behavior adjustment. that at least jives with the materialistic, behavioristic evolutionary origin of life.
i agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
