Why do we hate our ancestors?

TogetherTurtle

Morality is a beast. Everyone has a take on what is right or wrong, but can we truly prove what that is?

For centuries there have been the subjugated and the subjugators, and it is often said that the victors write history. I challenge this. Often, when looking back at history, modern societies see some as the victim and talk more about them than the aggressors. Of course, they were aggressors. It would be wrong to say that Christopher Columbus treated natives fairly, or that Caesar didn't commit genocide in Gaul, or that Hitler was a peace-loving man. I know that some of you are far past your school days and that you may have been taught differently, but I can tell you first had that I was taught more about the natives than the colonists. Shouldn't we teach both of them?

I feel as if we have ingrained an idea of objective morality so far into our societies that we ignore not that the other side existed, but that they might even be people like you or me. I propose that there is not a "good" or "bad" side of anything, just the side that we agree with now and everything else. Constantly I see historical figures being vilified or being hailed as heroes, which of course is fine on its own, but should we be teaching that to children as objective truth?

I think it is perfectly fine to have a moral compass of any kind. Morals are necessary for a society to function. However, I do think that teaching history as if it happened today is wrong. Children should be taught the closest thing to objective knowledge of history as possible, nothing more or less. Maybe it would make history class more boring, but the ones who listen will be able to draw their own conclusions.

What do you think? The event that sparked this line of thought took place in an American history class I'm tutoring. I asked the teacher something along the lines of, "Why do we teach kids that Christopher Columbus was evil?' and his response was "because he did evil things." and of course I agree with that statement, from my point of view at least he did bad things. I guess my question is if he was wrong, why are we right? Will people in the future think that we are evil because they disagree with us?

MindForged

I'll be the first to point out something that everyone reading your post can tell in a near instant. Your political leanings are showing very clearly, your framing is so upfront (even in your title) that it makes the attempt at an argument in the post quite funny and your references to turns of phrases and cliches, just so you can say "No" to them, is tiresome.

Am I presenting an argument here? No, nor do I intend to. But when I read:

For centuries there have been the subjugated and the subjugators, and it is often said that the victors write history. I challenge this. Often, when looking back at history, modern societies see some as the victim and talk more about them than the aggressors. Of course, they were aggressors. — TogetherTurtle

I immediately realize I am not being given an argument with which to contend. I'm being given statement asserted as fact and expected to either accept it blindly or somehow prove that it isn't true (as if it were inherently credible). Naturally, it being nothing more than, at best, your own experience makes it true in your own eyes but you're just making statements.

. I propose that there is not a "good" or "bad" side of anything, just the side that we agree with now and everything else. Constantly I see historical figures being vilified or being hailed as heroes, which of course is fine on its own, but should we be teaching that to children as objective truth? — TogetherTurtle

I dunno. People who kill thousands or millions of people ought be regarded as evil in any circumstance or scenario. How evil is up for debate and may well depend on how they did so - Hitler killed, what, 20 something million civilians directly and with intent, and used the power of technology and the state to do so, while the bulk of Stalin's kill count seems to have been in the grain shortage - but anyone doing the relativist tap dance shouldn't expect everyone else to care about how they think children, who are impressionable and ignorant, thinks children should be taught.

Streetlight

that they might even be people like you or me. — TogetherTurtle

Speak for yourself.

sign

Will people in the future think that we are evil because they disagree with us? — TogetherTurtle

Yes. But some of them will have a similar kind of realization as you are presenting. It seems that it's just a part of acculturation to absorb a goods versus bads narrative, especially within a general framing of the situation in terms of infinite progress. A different framing might understand the past as good and the future as a deviation that ought to be corrected. I lean more toward the progress narrative, but with a sense that it's all too easy to demonize the past from the self-satisfied present. In some ways we might say that 'Columbus is evil' (or this interpretation) is already directed at the future. 'We ought to be (are learning to be) the kind of people who question our own complacency.' In some ways, you are just continuing that questioning of self-righteousness against that very questioning.

Terrapin Station

What do you think? The event that sparked this line of thought took place in an American history class I'm tutoring. I asked the teacher something along the lines of, "Why do we teach kids that Christopher Columbus was evil?' and his response was "because he did evil things." and of course I agree with that statement, from my point of view at least he did bad things. I guess my question is if he was wrong, why are we right? Will people in the future think that we are evil because they disagree with us? — TogetherTurtle

Just curious how, exactly, you present the idea that Columbus was "evil"?

I'm not in favor of teachers making moral claims period. Why not just teach facts and let students make their own assessments?

TogetherTurtle

↪MindForged

I don't really know what you mean by "political leanings", I was just wondering about this kind of stuff. As for presenting things as statements and only using your own observations, I don't know what other way you would present an idea. How would you know something unless you read it somewhere or saw it?

Let me preface this next statement by saying I wholeheartedly believe that killing people is wrong. I think it's wrong, and from your statements, I assume you do as well. Clearly, Hitler and many of his followers didn't. What makes us correct morally in thinking that it's wrong? I know that it's wrong, and many people think it's wrong as well, but that's more of an opinion and less of an objective truth.

TogetherTurtle

↪Terrapin Station

I was along that line of thinking as well, that children should make their own decisions in that regard. I don't think Columbus was "evil" per se, and most of the things he did were just products of their time, but in hindsight, they were "bad", at least in the present train of thought.

So I agree, only teach what we know, not what we think about what we know.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

That's a really interesting perspective. I agree that I am certainly questioning, and that does feed into this cycle of moral development, but I also don't think that people who believe this "good vs evil" narrative to be stupid or even wrong. Many people have been wrong about both provable things and moral issues (at least in today's world), and I don't think any of them should be demonized for what they used their own intuition and observation to think of. If anything, using abstract thought to explain something should be celebrated because it's a sign of intelligence. even if these people are wrong, they came up with something, which is better than nothing and probably equal to what we have now.

sign

I don't think Columbus was "evil" per se, and most of the things he did were just products of their time, but in hindsight, they were "bad", at least in the present train of thought. — TogetherTurtle

Some have speculated that humankind is trying to work out a consciousness of its own freedom over the centuries, through work, war, philosophy, etc. It's not obvious that we could have skipped what is called evil, anymore than the individual can skip painful experiences in becoming mature.

I sometimes wish I could go back and warn my younger self about certain misconceptions of reality. But would young me have believed time-traveling older me? Would older me be intelligible to younger me? Or was suffering the consequences of my mistakes that only real teacher?

A person locked in an ideology cannot 'hear' criticism from the outside of that ideology. Being lock in an ideology is precisely a kind of deafness. So ideologies can only crash in their own terms, by their own standards. This takes time, and the time of this crashing (which includes the birth of a new ideology that includes but transcends the old) is history itself. Or that's one view of it. And it can be applied to individuals or civilizations.

TogetherTurtle

↪StreetlightX

I guess this implies you aren't human. I'm more of the line of thought that anyone who is can observe the world around them and make something up about it is human.

sign

I propose that there is not a "good" or "bad" side of anything, just the side that we agree with now and everything else. — TogetherTurtle

This is basically 'universal spirit.' The real is the rational is the currently unquestionable, the currently taken-for-absolute.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

I guess the question is then what "locks" someone in an ideology? I understand the problem you're referring to, however. There are many "echo chambers" on the internet especially that refuse to even acknowledge that there could be another side.

As for time travel, I like to think my younger self would listen to me, and that I would listen to my older self, but people often tell themselves they won't blow a paycheck on something stupid and do it anyway. Who knows.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

I feel as if that both tears society apart and shoves it together. What a strange concept. Maybe someday we will understand ourselves and then the rest of the universe.

sign

I guess the question is then what "locks" someone in an ideology? I understand the problem you're referring to, however. There are many "echo chambers" on the internet especially that refuse to even acknowledge that there could be another side. — TogetherTurtle

That's a deep question. Learning to be in a culture is just learning to take some things for granted as unquestionable. And then being in a bubble or echo chamber seems to repeat this process. One gets a sense of what one's peers will and will not tolerate being put into question. Each side can understand the other side of being locked in an ideology.

And both sides can be suspicious of a thinker who won't choose a side (though maybe they just ignore him). This outsider is in some ways the worst enemy of all, since he frames the spiritual project (the war between the sides) as itself a confusion or absurdity. I need my chosen enemy for my own sense of worth and superiority. I fear or hate anyone who questions my basic project from outside the war I understand myself to be winning. If you question my war and don't simply join on one side or the other, you are truly eerie, perhaps unintelligible.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

Maybe we are all just a bunch of stupid monkeys. Our brains, while being the key to what has made us so great, are still lacking. 1000 years ago, no one knew about the electromagnetic spectrum, or even what visible light was. Their brains alone couldn't do the job of observing and documenting such things, and neither can ours. Now we have technology that lets us see what our senses can't. Maybe the answer to all our questions lies within finding new things to measure, and what locks someone into an ideology is their fear of the unmeasurable?

sign

Maybe we are all just a bunch of stupid monkeys. — TogetherTurtle

Ha! Well, I like the humility in this. (By the way, you can quote me and respond line by line by highlighting until a button appears.)

But the fact that we stupid limit monkeys can dream of ourselves as stupid little monkeys shows that we aren't such stupid little monkeys. Or that's one way to read the situation. Can we ever sincerely abandon the pursuit of virtue? Is it not the essence of the human to strive beyond the human? And if we say that we are 'just monkeys,' are we not pursuing something that a monkey wouldn't pursue, a god's eye view?

Now we have technology that lets us see what our senses can't. Maybe the answer to all our questions lies within finding new things to measure, and what locks someone into an ideology is their fear of the unmeasurable? — TogetherTurtle

I really like that last line. I think fear plays a role. But also there is self-love, even a healthy self-love. Basically it just feels good to have the world figured out. As long as one's current way of living is successful, one is not even wrong. One has the world basically figured out. But the world changes, so the ways of thinking and doing have to change to keep up. So too much fear and too much self-satisfaction (self-righteousness) become dangerous. Or that's one way to look at it.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

I already knew about the quote button, I had just neglected to use it. That's my fault.

In futurism and Sci-Fi circles, the term "Post Human" refers to beings that have "ascended" to a different level of understanding or have modified their own bodies to suit their every need. A line of thought I have had for a long time is that power should be in the hands of those who are qualified to use it in everyone's best interest, but to the extent of my knowledge, there is no one who has ever lived that is good enough for that. Essentially, my only real political belief is that the perfect world would be ruled by a perfect leader who has ascended in some sort of way, to have a "god's eye view" as you called it. One true man to unite the fighting monkeys I suppose. Unfortunately, It's my belief that we haven't produced any "true men" yet.

I believe Aristotle spoke of a "Philosopher King", one who would rule according to knowledge. Of course, I haven't read his work so I could be completely off base, but maybe that was what he had in mind in a way. Or maybe this is just another evolution of an old crashing idea being resurrected.

sign

↪TogetherTurtle

That 'one true man' seems to be a central fantasy of Western culture. Jesus , Socrates, the philosopher-king, etc. I like Feuerbach's thinking on this one. He distinguishes between God-as-man and God-as-men. Do we imagine the 'divine' concentrated in one genius or ruler? Or do we understand the 'divine' as necessarily distributed? The 'species essence' takes on billions of individual shapes and paths, but all of these shapes/paths (individuals) are 'sewn' together by language. Metaphorically speaking, 'God' is something like a distributed personality whose body is this language that outlives the individuals who 'incarnate' it. For instance, right now we discuss our situation (our human essence) in a language that will survive us (ignoring nuclear annihilation, etc.) . So 'my' thoughts are already exterior to me as signs with an imperfectly repeatable meaning for those not born. In Hegel's view, this allows for human's to become progressively conscious of their own nature. Indeed, this revelation of human nature through language (which is also its construction) is perhaps the essence of human nature.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

Man creating god from language is just a step in understanding ourselves then, in a process that culminates in us becoming gods. To understand is to control, and a god controls all things. We have slowly started asking questions about our nature, which leads to us understanding it more, which leads to us questioning more, and theoretically, this process continues until we completely understand ourselves and can change ourselves to understand the universe, then controlling all things.

To avoid being locked in this ideology I'll have to find a counter-argument.

I believe that your interpretation of the fantasy of western culture to be accurate. It seems strange that the west is also associated with democracy and personal freedoms.

MindForged

I don't really know what you mean by "political leanings", I was just wondering about this kind of stuff — TogetherTurtle

In nearly every case I see this sort of thing it's some pointless complain by a conservative or libertarian who wants people to stop pointing out that genocide and slavery can't be whitewashed and that they don't count against the morally upstanding nature of their great ancestors. It's so often so clearly self-interested that I'm pessimistic when I see this sort of thing.

As for presenting things as statements and only using your own observations, I don't know what other way you would present an idea. How would you know something unless you read it somewhere or saw it? — TogetherTurtle

Here's my problem. Your post just says things and doesn't give any reason for people to accept what you're saying is true.

Let me preface this next statement by saying I wholeheartedly believe that killing people is wrong. I think it's wrong, and from your statements, I assume you do as well. Clearly, Hitler and many of his followers didn't. What makes us correct morally in thinking that it's wrong? I know that it's wrong, and many people think it's wrong as well, but that's more of an opinion and less of an objective truth. — TogetherTurtle

You're confusing the limits of moral epistemology (which deals with how we know what's moral or immoral) and moral metaphysics (which deals with what actually is moral or immoral). Pick a standard normative moral theory and it will give a fairly robust explanation for thinking that murder is wrong (killing is a broader class of actions, sometimes killing is justified).

TogetherTurtle

↪MindForged

In nearly every case I see this sort of thing it's some pointless complain by a conservative or libertarian who wants people to stop pointing out that genocide and slavery can't be whitewashed and that they don't count against the morally uosta ding nature of their great ancestors. It's so often so clearly self-interested that I'm pessimistic when I see this sort of thing. — MindForged

I've made it a point to not get involved in politics too much. Nowadays it's too much of a headache and you can lose friends over something as stupid as road maintenance. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people, but I intend to keep our discussion as civil as possible.

Here's my problem. Your post just says things and doesn't give any reason for people to accept what you're saying is true. — MindForged

That is a serious problem not only with my post but the nature of reality and human society itself. Anyone can say anything, and any proof they site could also be just as fabricated. I know very well that I will never have a true answer to anything, and that my puny human mind doesn't see the world exactly how it is and I'm very capable of making up memories or forgetting important ones. I find that Philosophy often deals with abstract thought and hypotheticals more than it does with actual "truth". In saying all this, I want a discussion, not a debate. (which is very rare nowadays so I don't blame you for looking for arguments.)

You're confusing the limits of moral epistemology (which deals with how we know what's moral or immoral) and moral metaphysics (which deals with what actually is moral or immoral). Pick a standard normative moral theory and it will give a fairly robust explanation for thinking that murder is wrong (killing is a broader class of actions, sometimes killing is justified). — MindForged

I will admit that I don't know the difference. I'm almost entirely sure you are more well-read than me, just like everyone else on this forum. However, my understanding of morality is more along the lines of "there is no actual moral or immoral, (So no moral metaphysics I suppose?) just what a society creates to keep its people in line." I know this almost runs in contradiction to my previous response, but there doesn't appear to be any indication of right or wrong in the natural world. This, of course, may not be true, but if we didn't take liberties, we would still be wondering if we even existed, right? All of that being said, I will look into standard normative moral theories.

Oh, and nice profile pic. I hope you asked for permission from the artist before you used it, but if you didn't, what am I to say about you being good or evil?

sign

Man creating god from language is just a step in understanding ourselves then, in a process that culminates in us becoming gods. To understand is to control, and a god controls all things. — TogetherTurtle

Exactly! And that is the humanist dream that we find explored in German philosophy at least. And even Derrida in 'The Ends of Man' argues that the 'escape' from humanism has been nothing but the reinstatement of humanism at a higher level, again and again. He jokingly asks whether we've ever left the church (since humanism is born from Christianity through Hegel and others.). Critics of anthropomorphism/humanism ultimately argue that the essence of the human has been (so far) conceived in an insufficiently radical way. It's not humanism that's bad. It's the old humanism that's bad. What they are selling isn't humanism (and yet it is precisely again and again what is most worthy in man, what the human should strive toward.)

We should add, however, that later Heidegger understands the godlikeness of man in terms of letting beings be, responding to the call of being, being the shepherd of being. (I am only sketching and haven't read the later Heidegger carefully. I am mostly interested in his early work at this point.) So there are 'passive' understandings of human divinity. I'm not rejecting or accepting Heidegger's position. I'm just saying it's fascinating. He thought our need to control was out of control. So one could joke that he is still talking about control. Man needs to learn to control his need to control, etc. He once said 'only a god can save us,' but he meant this metaphorically.

sign

We have slowly started asking questions about our nature, which leads to us understanding it more, which leads to us questioning more, and theoretically, this process continues until we completely understand ourselves and can change ourselves to understand the universe, then controlling all things. — TogetherTurtle

Indeed. So the question might be whether or not we actually achieve some terminus. Is the journey infinite? Or is there some kind of completion? Does philosophy only ever understand what has already happened? Or can it ever see the future and thereby neutralize it? (The future that we can calculate is already present, one might say.)

sign

To avoid being locked in this ideology I'll have to find a counter-argument.

I believe that your interpretation of the fantasy of western culture to be accurate. It seems strange that the west is also associated with democracy and personal freedoms. — TogetherTurtle

For me the democracy and personal freedom would be related to the notion that god or the human essence is distributed. In some ways this is the essential path of humanism. We can look at Protestantism. Once the layman interprets the scripture for himself, we are already on the way to the idea that the individual has a direct relationship with the 'divine,' the authoritative. It doesn't take long for rationality to take the place of the holy ghost. No one 'owns' rationality. One participates in it or 'incarnates' it. And science is based on publicly repeatable experiment. The 'I' who speaks the truth is already a we, speaking in the name of an abstract principle (science, rationality, fairness, justice) that already points to the social. Who-we-should-be is a like a ghost that haunts every discussion of the real.

The incarnation is a smearing of the 'divine' across all individuals, at least inasmuch as they participate in the human essence. This 'distributed' god-as-men or Christ-as-rationality humanism conquered a humanism that imagined an alien object mediated by a priesthood. And of course we should note the replacement of the pictorial representation of the divine by concepts.

(None of this is original with me. It's just a paraphrasing of philosophers I like.)

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

(None of this is original with me. It's just a paraphrasing of philosophers I like.) — sign

When are we not paraphrasing something that we have heard before? I've got a long road ahead of me in terms of reading in all of these things, but it's really the ideas that matter. Personally, I don't believe in "Intellectual property" because a prerequisite for property is the ability to solely own and defend from those who would want to steal. No one can "steal" knowledge because the owner always retains it. I, of course, understand the purpose of copyright law, but I also believe that the average person should have as much information at their fingertips as possible.

Indeed. So the question might be whether or not we actually achieve some terminus. Is the journey infinite? Or is there some kind of completion? Does philosophy only ever understand what has already happened? Or can it ever see the future and thereby neutralize it? (The future that we can calculate is already present, one might say.) — sign

We may never get there. That may not be where we're going. I'm sort of afraid of unbreakable loops, but maybe that's just because I'm not ascended yet. only time will tell I suppose. I still don't think any of this means anything in the context of morality since nothing I've ever seen or heard of has been affected by right or wrong in the natural world. In the end, even if mankind ascends to godhood and can shift atoms into new and interesting forms, they may never know what is truly right or wrong, or if there even is a truth about it to know.

sign

When are we not paraphrasing something that we have heard before? I've got a long road ahead of me in terms of reading in all of these things, but it's really the ideas that matter. — TogetherTurtle

It is indeed hard to get beyond paraphrasing. And I very much agree that it's the ideas that matter. I suppose I mention my sources so as to make clear that I can't take credit for them, even if I might want to. As I see it, most of us are lucky enough if we can just catch up with the conversation. But beyond the pleasant fantasy of saying something new and important that adds to the conversation, it really is just great to understand great philosophy. For me it's one of the reasons to be alive. Here's a quote from one of Hegel's best books, his lectures on the history of philosophy.

There is an age-old assumption that thinking distinguishes man from the beast. This we shall accept. What makes man nobler than the beast is what he possesses through thought. Whatever is human is so only to the extent that therein thought is active; no matter what its outward appearance may be, if it is human, thought makes it so. In this alone is man distinguished from the beast.

Still, insofar as thought is in this way the essential, the substantial, the active in man, it has to do with an infinite manifold and variety of objects. Thought will be at its best, however, when it is occupied only with what is best in man, with thought itself, where it wants only itself, has to do with itself alone. For, to be occupied with itself is to discover itself by creating itself; and this it can do only by manifesting itself. Thought is active only in producing itself; and it produces itself by its very own activity. It is not simply there; it exists only by being its own producer. What it thus produces is philosophy, and what we have to investigate is the series of such productions, the millennial work of thought in bringing itself forth, the voyage of discovery upon which thought embarks in order to discover itself. — Hegel

We may never get there. That may not be where we're going. I'm sort of afraid of unbreakable loops, but maybe that's just because I'm not ascended yet. only time will tell I suppose. I still don't think any of this means anything in the context of morality since nothing I've ever seen or heard of has been affected by right or wrong in the natural world. In the end, even if mankind ascends to godhood and can shift atoms into new and interesting forms, they may never know what is truly right or wrong, or if there even is a truth about it to know. — TogetherTurtle

Indeed, I'm more inclined to see an openendedness. And the right-wrong question is deep. I do postulate a kind of basic structure, though. If a person 'comes to the table' and debates, this seems to imply some sense of what 'we' ought to believe. So at least in the sincere mode of doing philosophy, arguing about what is real, there seems to be the implication that it is good to understand the real in this or that way. A person may argue that there is no objective morality, but by bothering to argue it they seem to be suggesting that it is better for us all not to believe in objective morality ---in other words, an objective morality. A person may also argue that all knowledge is conjecture, that the truth is unattainable. But just this knowledge becomes absolute truth, the truth about truth. I'm interested in what is implied by the act of philosophy, that which it can only deny by misunderstanding itself.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

As I see it, most of us are lucky enough if we can just catch up with the conversation. — sign

I suppose I have a lot of reading to do. I have found that a common theme for my time here has been thinking of something on my own and finding out that there is already an entire library of books written about it. In that regard, Philosophy is much like Science and Math, because most people in those fields will never come up with something new. It is enough to understand though, so you can at least feel smart.

Last time I made a post here was about six months ago. I had always had an interest in Philosophy and finally wanted to get my ideas out there. I both regret and appreciate that. I appreciate it because it has given me so much more to think about it, but what would happen if someone never heard anything else about Philosophy (or any other subject) but studied it in isolation? Would they bring something new to the table? Would it be more useful?

I also need to point out that I learned a lot from my first post itself. People don't like history lessons they have already learned, and even when someone might seem a little sarcastic, there is always something to learn from them.

I suppose that's just part of the "evil" in growing and learning.

sign

t what would happen if someone never heard anything else about Philosophy (or any other subject) but studied it in isolation? Would they bring something new to the table? Would it be more useful? — TogetherTurtle

That seems possible. Just as there are outsider artists there are outsider philosophers. Of course they have to start from somewhere. They are already in a community. If they do find something new, it will have to be woven in to the thoughts already at the table in order to be brought to the table, I suppose.
Wittgenstein hadn't read much philosophy when rose to frame. I'm pretty sure there are lots of classics that he just never got around to. So I guess he's already an outsider philosopher (to some degree) who was adopted as canonical, a must-read.

Philosophy is much like Science and Math, because most people in those fields will never come up with something new. It is enough to understand though, so you can at least feel smart. — TogetherTurtle

Yeah. To give the people in those fields a little credit, I think they pretty much have to squeeze out something new to get a PhD. But this new thing can be very small, a mere footnote.

I agree that it is enough to understand. We can't all be Einstein. To be all torn up about it would be like not enjoying a middle class comfort because one isn't a billionaire. And I roughly believe in a basic insight of freedom. A person can roughly grab the essence of life and the essence of philosophy, without ever mastering all of its clever elaborations. Basically we can have a friendly conversation right now because we recognize one another's essential dignity/freedom/value (whatever you want to call it.) We recognize that the other is 'cool' enough to talk to and listen to.I'd joke that the point is to get cool and stay cool, knowing that this word 'cool' is a little awkward here, a little uncool.

TogetherTurtle

↪sign

Yeah. To give the people in those fields a little credit, I think they pretty much have to squeeze out something new to get a PhD. But this new thing can be very small, a mere footnote. — sign

I can hardly fathom that. If I came up with any new Math or Science or even Philosophy, even a small footnote, I would probably consider my life complete.

Basically we can have a friendly conversation right now because we recognize one another's essential dignity/freedom/value (whatever you want to call it.) We recognize that the other is 'cool' enough to talk to and listen to.I'd joke that the point is to get cool and stay cool, knowing that this word 'cool' is a little awkward here, a little uncool. — sign

I think the problem is that sometimes we ignore someone else's value. I don't know about you, but I have certainly done that before. It's sort of painful to think of all the people that could have increased our understanding of the natural world if we would have just listened to them. Even if they are wrong, the level of creative thinking and study it takes to create a theory is tremendous and should be rewarded.

So I would definitely consider you "cool", but In a different way than me, or anyone else. The root of all of this seems to be that some people's cool doesn't work well with others.

sign

I think the problem is that sometimes we ignore someone else's value. I don't know about you, but I have certainly done that before. It's sort of painful to think of all the people that could have increased our understanding of the natural world if we would have just listened to them. Even if they are wrong, the level of creative thinking and study it takes to create a theory is tremendous and should be rewarded. — TogetherTurtle

Indeed. We close ourselves off, often to exactly what we need to hear. In theory we need to hear, but in practice we aren't ready to listen. In practice what we need to hear my be only slightly less 'incorrect than our current views. It's all our vanity can bear? On the flip side there is over-valuing people who treat us badly when other would treat us better (politicians or lovers or friends, etc.)

I definitely like the idea of the world where creative thinking is rewarded (which pretty much assumes that the creativity is of value or at least harmless.) I suppose we come to the problem of choice again. What is positive or at least harmless? The feeling toward natural science is generally positive. With philosophy it's maybe more difficult. New ways of thinking can be perceived as intensely negative, like viruses that bring down civilizations. We are really presupposing a free culture that values freedom and creativity above just about anything else (which sounds pretty great to me, but the devil is in the details.)

TogetherTurtle

but the devil is in the details — sign

It always is. Only time will tell if we can all make this happen or screw it up. It will take everything we have to make a future our posterity can not only be proud of but use as a platform to build in whatever direction they'd like.

Why do we hate our ancestors?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions