|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 24, 2020 22:04:00 GMT
With the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given it is being replaced by machines. Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress where that which produces to most supercedes that which existed prior thus binding the person to the new terms of the working conditions through which they exist.
With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problems and behaviors of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question, much like various advances in technologies are not resisted, due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand. The expansion of language mirrors this same nature of that of the expansion of technology: neither are resisted but only accepted and this acceptance leads to a greater obscurity of the human condition. With the progression of one phenomenon to another comes a lack of clarity as to its roots.
Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocably to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.
In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 26, 2020 18:51:29 GMT
No, I can't completely agree on it, x9.
In talk between karl and me (I forgot what exactly the topic...) we discussed it a little. And I said that for a govt, and societies, yes, such a problem exists and it is important, but not for a person.
If I have a gun, or a computer, or a iron-soldering it's my item and the more skilled I am, the better. Even, if I were alone in the world, I'd like to have nuclear bombs, because they would've saved my life.
The different in that damned societies, cities, and in countries. One's always been under the pressure of the other persons. I think "the others" is the main problem, and this problem, in my opinion, cores in the Christ's word: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34).
It's not just a phrase for me, it's like a law-of-the-Universe law. It is something.
An individual is always good. I think that if I were Adam in Heaven I would not ask for a woman to be created =) (Actually, I think Adam hadn't done what He did if there were no women.) Anyway, a person, a unit, is really different, than "not the unit" (=society, govt, crowd, etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 27, 2020 2:32:02 GMT
No, I can't completely agree on it, x 9. In talk between karl and me (I forgot what exactly the topic...) we discussed it a little. And I said that for a govt, and societies, yes, such a problem exists and it is important, but not for a person. If I have a gun, or a computer, or a iron-soldering it's my item and the more skilled I am, the better. Even, if I were alone in the world, I'd like to have nuclear bombs, because they would've saved my life. The different in that damned societies, cities, and in countries. One's always been under the pressure of the other persons. I think "the others" is the main problem, and this problem, in my opinion, cores in the Christ's word: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). It's not just a phrase for me, it's like a law-of-the-Universe law. It is something. An individual is always good. I think that if I were Adam in Heaven I would not ask for a woman to be created =) (Actually, I think Adam hadn't done what He did if there were no women.) Anyway, a person, a unit, is really different, than "not the unit" (=society, govt, crowd, etc). With the progress in tools, material or philosophical, comes q movement away from the human condition as being a part of said work. With the advancement of tools comes a movement away from people working with their minds and bodies. With the advancement of philosophical language comes a movement away from peoples ability to reason, ie break/build through parts, about philosophical issues in depth due to the increasing obscurity due to the polarization of language. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 13:00:05 GMT
No, I can't completely agree on it, x 9. In talk between karl and me (I forgot what exactly the topic...) we discussed it a little. And I said that for a govt, and societies, yes, such a problem exists and it is important, but not for a person. If I have a gun, or a computer, or a iron-soldering it's my item and the more skilled I am, the better. Even, if I were alone in the world, I'd like to have nuclear bombs, because they would've saved my life. The different in that damned societies, cities, and in countries. One's always been under the pressure of the other persons. I think "the others" is the main problem, and this problem, in my opinion, cores in the Christ's word: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). It's not just a phrase for me, it's like a law-of-the-Universe law. It is something. An individual is always good. I think that if I were Adam in Heaven I would not ask for a woman to be created =) (Actually, I think Adam hadn't done what He did if there were no women.) Anyway, a person, a unit, is really different, than "not the unit" (=society, govt, crowd, etc). With the progress in tools, material or philosophical, comes q movement away from the human condition as being a part of said work. With the advancement of tools comes a movement away from people working with their minds and bodies. With the advancement of philosophical language comes a movement away from peoples ability to reason, ie break/build through parts, about philosophical issues in depth due to the increasing obscurity due to the polarization of language. Yeah, there are. Isn't it so bad? We don't live in an ideal world. Everything is not fair. Unfortunately the philosophy's reasoning hasn't vanished yet. Since a society exists philosophy is traveling hand-by-hand with it, with a society. The last man standing doesn't need any philosophy. Besides, the philosophy reasoning is nothing else than the interest of the stronger. Whom are you gonna reasoning? A society is an ooze, a toad, a dog, a bird, a monkey, an animal. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Aug 28, 2020 8:13:37 GMT
I don't think one's condition, or I would say "position," is related to their humanity at all, simply they affect one's expression of their humanity. Societal pressures/norms/expectations are one part of personal expression, but those expressions come from a wide range of possibilities. Change someone's environment, change their expressions. The potential was there the whole time.
In a practical day-to-day sense, our reliance on things like technology has made it no longer necessary to, for instance, harvest all of our crops by hand, but harvesting crops is not a part of our humanity. Neither really would be hunting and gathering, the predecessor to farming. Rather, all three of these things are just varying expressions of what we are as humans: beings that are subject to entropy, have a compulsion to fill it (despite it being impossible to eternally fill...), and have the physical and willful capabilities to act on that compulsion (...we do what we can.)
Hope I'm not coming off as rude or dismissive. Just trying to push the conversation. :-D
I also would disagree with the idea of a sole person not needing philosophy, as the desire for personal improvement can exist independent of external pressure. For instance, someone living totally alone with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle might find that their nervousness causes them to throw their spear inaccurately more often than not, resulting in a high ratio of unsuccessful to successful hunting sessions. To address this, they might ask, "How can I control my nervousness? So philosophy is born/applied.
Also of note is that religions are philosophical in nature. They are held today as frameworks of understanding the world around us and were created under the same pretext, so far as we can tell. They also often have guiding structures towards properly conforming to that framework, without which I do not know they could be referred to as religions rather than standalone beliefs
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 30, 2020 3:42:42 GMT
I don't think one's condition, or I would say "position," is related to their humanity at all, simply they affect one's expression of their humanity. Societal pressures/norms/expectations are one part of personal expression, but those expressions come from a wide range of possibilities. Change someone's environment, change their expressions. The potential was there the whole time. In a practical day-to-day sense, our reliance on things like technology has made it no longer necessary to, for instance, harvest all of our crops by hand, but harvesting crops is not a part of our humanity. Neither really would be hunting and gathering, the predecessor to farming. Rather, all three of these things are just varying expressions of what we are as humans: beings that are subject to entropy, have a compulsion to fill it (despite it being impossible to eternally fill...), and have the physical and willful capabilities to act on that compulsion (...we do what we can.) Hope I'm not coming off as rude or dismissive. Just trying to push the conversation. :-D I also would disagree with the idea of a sole person not needing philosophy, as the desire for personal improvement can exist independent of external pressure. For instance, someone living totally alone with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle might find that their nervousness causes them to throw their spear inaccurately more often than not, resulting in a high ratio of unsuccessful to successful hunting sessions. To address this, they might ask, "How can I control my nervousness? So philosophy is born/applied. Also of note is that religions are philosophical in nature. They are held today as frameworks of understanding the world around us and were created under the same pretext, so far as we can tell. They also often have guiding structures towards properly conforming to that framework, without which I do not know they could be referred to as religions rather than standalone beliefs Advancement, be it technological or philosophical, is a movement away from the human condition of mind, body, and spirit being in depthly involved with whatever work is presented to them given these advancements replace the mind, body and spirit and their engagements with one's work at a more personal level. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Aug 30, 2020 22:31:08 GMT
I don't think one's condition, or I would say "position," is related to their humanity at all, simply they affect one's expression of their humanity. Societal pressures/norms/expectations are one part of personal expression, but those expressions come from a wide range of possibilities. Change someone's environment, change their expressions. The potential was there the whole time. In a practical day-to-day sense, our reliance on things like technology has made it no longer necessary to, for instance, harvest all of our crops by hand, but harvesting crops is not a part of our humanity. Neither really would be hunting and gathering, the predecessor to farming. Rather, all three of these things are just varying expressions of what we are as humans: beings that are subject to entropy, have a compulsion to fill it (despite it being impossible to eternally fill...), and have the physical and willful capabilities to act on that compulsion (...we do what we can.) Hope I'm not coming off as rude or dismissive. Just trying to push the conversation. :-D I also would disagree with the idea of a sole person not needing philosophy, as the desire for personal improvement can exist independent of external pressure. For instance, someone living totally alone with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle might find that their nervousness causes them to throw their spear inaccurately more often than not, resulting in a high ratio of unsuccessful to successful hunting sessions. To address this, they might ask, "How can I control my nervousness? So philosophy is born/applied. Also of note is that religions are philosophical in nature. They are held today as frameworks of understanding the world around us and were created under the same pretext, so far as we can tell. They also often have guiding structures towards properly conforming to that framework, without which I do not know they could be referred to as religions rather than standalone beliefs Advancement, be it technological or philosophical, is a movement away from the human condition of mind, body, and spirit being in depthly involved with whatever work is presented to them given these advancements replace the mind, body and spirit and their engagements with one's work at a more personal level. The Technology How It Is Done Today, Yes. The Technology That We Have, From Long Ago, No. Refer To " Nikola Tesla", When It Comes To Technology, Without Separating From The Human Condition. Nikola Tesla ~ " My project was retarded by laws of nature. The world was not prepared for it. It was too far ahead of time. But the same laws will prevail." We Will Call It " Spiritual Technology", When Technology Is Not Created By Narcissistic Tyrants, But Harmonic Terrestrials. The Very Concept Of " Technology" Exists, Because The Universe Made It Existent, We Just Have To Use It For Good, And Connect It To The Cosmos. |
|
|
|
Post by timefuljoe on Sept 2, 2020 19:25:46 GMT
I don't think one's condition, or I would say "position," is related to their humanity at all, simply they affect one's expression of their humanity. Societal pressures/norms/expectations are one part of personal expression, but those expressions come from a wide range of possibilities. Change someone's environment, change their expressions. The potential was there the whole time. In a practical day-to-day sense, our reliance on things like technology has made it no longer necessary to, for instance, harvest all of our crops by hand, but harvesting crops is not a part of our humanity. Neither really would be hunting and gathering, the predecessor to farming. Rather, all three of these things are just varying expressions of what we are as humans: beings that are subject to entropy, have a compulsion to fill it (despite it being impossible to eternally fill...), and have the physical and willful capabilities to act on that compulsion (...we do what we can.) Hope I'm not coming off as rude or dismissive. Just trying to push the conversation. :-D I also would disagree with the idea of a sole person not needing philosophy, as the desire for personal improvement can exist independent of external pressure. For instance, someone living totally alone with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle might find that their nervousness causes them to throw their spear inaccurately more often than not, resulting in a high ratio of unsuccessful to successful hunting sessions. To address this, they might ask, "How can I control my nervousness? So philosophy is born/applied. Also of note is that religions are philosophical in nature. They are held today as frameworks of understanding the world around us and were created under the same pretext, so far as we can tell. They also often have guiding structures towards properly conforming to that framework, without which I do not know they could be referred to as religions rather than standalone beliefs Advancement, be it technological or philosophical, is a movement away from the human condition of mind, body, and spirit being in depthly involved with whatever work is presented to them given these advancements replace the mind, body and spirit and their engagements with one's work at a more personal level. Someone's engagement is arguably just shifted to something different. An old-fashioned typewriter does not have auto-correct, so I have to give focus to spelling words correctly, but a laptop will correct my misspellings for me which allows the attention I would normally give to spelling to be redirected into other aspects of what I am typing, like word choice and the best punctuation, things that could go farther to my end goal of writing a paper that I think best reflects what I was trying to express. Now, I could see an argument that 1) Technology does not require as much attention to a particular task, 2) We can then put that attention to a separate, unrelated task, so 3) None of the tasks we are doing are being given our full attention. Is that what you mean? That with technology we are not generally absorbed into a task, and so we do not gain the full experience of doing it and what we are working on looses the potential betterment that could theoretically be gained from focusing soley on it? As humans, it can be very satisfying to see and really notice our work unfold in front of us, yeah. Is that what you mean? Hope this is not annoying. I think I understand what you are saying, but I would like to be sure. I don't know that being personally engaged in work is necessarily a basic part of being human. After all, before even procuring food to eat we must breathe, something we do unconsciously. There are also the microbioms of our body to be considered. They are integral to our survival, yet we are only recently knowing that they exist. For sure, it is important to staying healthy that we treat our body, their homes, in a way that will not damage or cause an imbalance in them. Though their sheer importance is a relatively novel discovery, we have known for a long time that we ought to "eat healthy and exercise," even though we did not actually understand why that was. Of course, there is more to one's health than their microbiom, and back in the day there were more basic theories. Tomorrow we may know something that flips around what we think we know today, but I am digressing. |
|
