Amergin
New Member
Posts: 13
Likes: 6
|
Post by Amergin on Dec 20, 2019 19:27:14 GMT
What cultural conditions are required for the development of the highest human types? In answering please describe what you think the highest human types are(I assume you have moral and aesthetic preferences) and how the cultural conditions that you advocate would bring about the realisation of these types, assuming of course that bringing them about is something that you'd want.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 5, 2020 5:06:12 GMT
Under the Present System, STEM Students Should Use Their Brains to Make Money and Reject School Subjects The present system? I thought this thread is about the ideal. But let's get practical. The present system is so evil, so dysgenic, and so anti-intellectual that it simply must die. But it has already successfully wiped out almost all human intelligence to speak of, so a practical solution should just be aimed at trying to breed human intelligence back into existence over the next 200 years. I wrote about this here: old.reddit.com/r/nonmorons/comments/ejscqq/my_plan/
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 5, 2020 20:11:50 GMT
How do you define rationalism within this context? The idea that deductive reason can produce truth about reality.
Judging by what you've stated in an earlier discussion about this, you don't just mean that deductive reasoning does not provide us with ethics, or tell us how to govern a society, as you also include our understanding of physical reality. If you meant that intuition plays a role in how to describe the physical world, in that logic and observation itself doesn't provide us with a scientific theory, then I would agree, but I don't think that's your position either. So my question is: What is the truthful approach for someone who wishes to understand physical reality?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 5, 2020 21:52:31 GMT
So my question is: What is the truthful approach for someone who wishes to understand physical reality? In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Rules
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jan 5, 2020 21:58:26 GMT
Under the Present System, STEM Students Should Use Their Brains to Make Money and Reject School Subjects The present system? I thought this thread is about the ideal. But let's get practical. The present system is so evil, so dysgenic, and so anti-intellectual that it simply must die. But it has already successfully wiped out almost all human intelligence to speak of, so a practical solution should just be aimed at trying to breed human intelligence back into existence over the next 200 years. I wrote about this here: old.reddit.com/r/nonmorons/comments/ejscqq/my_plan/ The Road to Perdition Is Patrician Whatever you are told from above, including the false and controlled alternatives, must be eliminated from the process of judgment. (Inherited) money talks, and that's all we hear. That leaves the constructive tool that unearned hereditary privileges must all be abolished. Guillotine-fodder rule is the well-hidden cancer that has destroyed all civilizations. It is the main obstacle to human progress. Leftover wealth must go back to the public, which created it for the plutocracy. High IQs created the most, so it must be invested in them (not their teachers or schools) the same way the spawn of the rich get it now. Let every dynasty die nasty.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 5, 2020 22:29:44 GMT
So my question is: What is the truthful approach for someone who wishes to understand physical reality? In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Rules
So one uses deductive reasoning based on the induction principle, where the induction principle is a given premise. And, I would like to add, accepting the induction principle is intuitive, since the induction principle cannot prove itself, and there is no more fundamental principle from which it may be deduced. Bertrand Russell pointed out it his book, "Problems of philosophy", that the induction principle is an actual example of synthetic knowledge a priori. (Some would replace the word "knowledge" with "judgement".) There will always be more to experience in regards to reality, and so we can never find full clarity through deductive reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 5, 2020 22:55:54 GMT
And, I would like to add, accepting the induction principle is intuitive, since the induction principle cannot prove itself, and there is no more fundamental principle from which it may be deduced. Bertrand Russell pointed out it his book, "Problems of philosophy", that the induction principle is an actual example of synthetic knowledge a priori. Bertrand Russell is part of the problem. Of course one cannot reason or even think without first making assumptions (axioms). The induction principle is an assumption/axiom (and my only one). You are free to choose whatever assumptions you want, and God/reality will judge those assumptions with the outcome of your life. So one uses deductive reasoning based on the induction principle as a given premise. Yes but more practically one only uses deductive reasoning to form hypotheses and then one uses inductive reasoning to validate them.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 6, 2020 0:06:35 GMT
And, I would like to add, accepting the induction principle is intuitive, since the induction principle cannot prove itself, and there is no more fundamental principle from which it may be deduced. Bertrand Russell pointed out it his book, "Problems of philosophy", that the induction principle is an actual example of synthetic knowledge a priori. Bertrand Russell is part of the problem. Of course one cannot reason or even think without first making assumptions (axioms). The induction principle is an assumption/axiom (and my only one). You are free to choose whatever assumptions you want, and God/reality will judge those assumptions with the outcome of your life. So one uses deductive reasoning based on the induction principle as a given premise. Yes but more practically one only uses deductive reasoning to form hypotheses and then one uses inductive reasoning to validate them.
There is nothing in this I disagree with, so I have nothing add. Well, you didn't actually clarify your criticism of Bertrand Russell, but I don't think that really matters.
|
|
Amergin
New Member
Posts: 13
Likes: 6
|
Post by Amergin on Jan 7, 2020 16:45:53 GMT
Development can be judged by intellectual output and increase in standard of living. Required cultural conditions: Stable religion to preserve successful traditions. Strict reproductive monogamy. Must reject rationalism which produces arrogance and instability. Ideally should implement noncoercive eugenics, for example by paying the poor not to reproduce. Avoid universal democracy, the average moron has no business participating in politics. I'm in almost complete agreement with you. From where we(Europeans) are today I think our path leads through rationalism and out the other side to something similar to our native- pre-Christian- religion(connection with the land, instinct). I'm less familiar with what is necessary for the Jewish soul but I think that as a general rule connection with the land and instinct are good. Eugenics is a must but it needs to be approached carefully. We don't have a society where the rich are necessarily the best among us. That's not to say that the poor are the best but there are certainly those among them with valuable attributes, and those among the rich that are arguably best excluded from the gene pool. On the other hand, you don't want everyone to be honest and upstanding or people will become easily duped etc.. Ideally the culture itself would be eugenic. Democracy: it makes sense to my mind for the average Joe to have some say in how his locality is run but on the level of the fate of nations, not so much. So what is good intellectual output? I'm especially interested in your take on this since you reject rationalism. And what constitutes an increase in standard of living? From what I've seen, from afar, of "primitive" tribalistic lifestyles, such peoples seem much happier than peoples in "developed" countries.
|
|
Amergin
New Member
Posts: 13
Likes: 6
|
Post by Amergin on Jan 7, 2020 17:22:34 GMT
What cultural conditions are required for the development of the highest human types? In answering please describe what you think the highest human types are(I assume you have moral and aesthetic preferences) and how the cultural conditions that you advocate would bring about the realisation of these types, assuming of course that bringing them about is something that you'd want. Good question! However, traditionally speaking, there is a more general question: What is a GOOD human life? For instance, health is always considered one characteristic of a physical good life, in the sense of both lack of pain and lack of physical disabilities. More positively speaking: the actualization of one's potentials. In the history of theories of education, Plato stresses the selection of children according to their abilities (which are recognized in early childhood). In this line of thought, I would like to write a book, not easy to develop: "Self-Management of Life -- for male adolescents", which deals with all sorts of SOCIAL situations and includes moral and legal issues. It is even more difficult to determine what cultural environmental conditions are conducive to the formation of a good life, and certainly our present "culture of violence" through television, movies, and video-games, is not conducive to anything good. For one's own care of potentials, the Montessori method of education s something Plato would be proud of. But as an individual grows in love with a certain type of activity or pursuit, we have the issues of freedom and of financial capability, while Time (the biological age) has its own demands and is not subject to one's own management. For me, the higher types of humans are the creators in any field -- mathematics, art, technologies, etc., which should be everybody's concern. Not all creators are created equal! There are lots of so called artists who aren't worth anything, and there are many technologies that arean't worth anything either, to my way of valuing. In general though I think that creativity is an attribute of the highest types. I hope you write that book. Male adolescents lack for guidance in a big way. Yeah, the selection of children early on is important too I think, less wasted energy.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 9, 2020 7:51:08 GMT
So what is good intellectual output? I'm especially interested in your take on this since you reject rationalism. This is subjective but I consider the best intellectual output to be increases in understanding of reality. This mostly means science, but also identifying patterns in history. Ideas that improve quality of life are also good. I don't care how "developed" a society is. For standard of living, one usually uses median income only because that is the best available statistic, but it is far from perfect. Better would be how much one has to work to be materially satisfied. Best would be quality of life, but this is useless because it can't be measured.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Mar 7, 2021 0:46:41 GMT
As i don't quite understand what exactly represents a high human type for , I would say that we should serve as good role models for the younger generation and establish effective dialogue and debate with them
|
|