Proper critique first requires understanding that which is being critiqued. — creativesoul
"Gasp! You can't say that! No! You can't do that!" - but I question such a value. Sometimes I just think, "No, fuck that". — S
What do you mean, "look how far you have to go"? All you need to do is look and see with your own eyes that human beings are part of reality as much as everything else living or non-living. We all share reality and are all part of this same reality. How else do you explain our causal influence upon each other, or even communicate?Look how far you have to go to explain how society is a natural phenomenon. — Merkwurdichliebe
Would you prefer the term "real"? "Natural" and "real" and synonyms to me. Are you real? Is your internet post real? Is your internet post part of reality such that anyone that looks in the right place will find it?I can't even say that seeing is a natural phenomenon because that is essentially a tautology, and we all know how stupid tautologies are. — Merkwurdichliebe
Is it your opinion that that is not your opinion? Is it opinions all the way down? How do you avoid an infinite regress of opinions when ultimately you have to admit that something is happening and why would it appear like a shared world populated with living and non living objects located relative to the senses if it's not? I think therefore I am? Is it an opinion or fact that Banno exists - either as something that thinks, or are you just an internet post that exists when I read it? Does reading your post exhaust all there is to know about Banno? If not, where do I look to find out more about Banno?Not my opinion — Banno
Would you prefer the term "real"? "Natural" and "real" and synonyms to me. Are you real? Is your internet post real? Is your internet post part of reality such that anyone that looks in the right place will find it? — Harry Hindu
Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus
There is a coherent conceptual distinction between natural and artificial. The latter is usually taken to refer to phenomena which are produced by human artifice.
Human society could be seen to be the interactive elaboration of human artifice, and might be considered to be an artificial phenomenon on that account. — Janus
I would say that not only can the the individual human being not be "isolated" from the "collective", but the collective cannot be isolated from nature; although it can obviously be useful for developing certain lines of thought to make the distinction between what we think of as natural and what we think of as artificial. Although, such a distinction tells us more about ourselves than about anything ontological, I would say. — Janus
That's my take. Are humans not able to transcend nature? — Merkwurdichliebe
To be clear, I was talking to mr. Harry in terms of degrees of nature, and that society as a natural phenomenon is not incorrect, but it is a lesser degree of natural than the individual.
It's good that you posited that it is impossible to isolate the individual from the collective. But then that brings forward thar classic philosophical debate over which is primary: the individual or collective.
Suppose objectivity is a collectively determined phenomenon, and that the natural sciences are the best tool for determining what is acceptable as fact. What condiderations can we draw from this? — Merkwurdichliebe
What do you mean by "transcend nature"? — Janus
the industrial revolution would have been impossible without fossil fuels — Janus
Even if we do, by some seeming miracle, find a replacement for fossil fuels, that will only be on account of exploiting nature in some other way, which may or may not turn out to be sustainable. So, much for our much vaunted "transcendence of nature"!
You may or may not have gathered from what I have said here that I am no "scientist" (in the sense of 'proponent of scientism'). :wink: — Janus
Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite in on earth. I'm inclined to agree that aptly describes the inherent nature of human collective. And that is why I hold the individual to be primary.
Only as an individual can one avert assimilation by the collective nature. Becoming an individual, rather than a number in a crowd, is the only possibility for redemption. — Merkwurdichliebe
Then, I gather you have a bit of a pessimistic view towards human nature, qua. some sort of parasite in on earth. — Merkwurdichliebe
Give us some credit, we are talking about the individual and the collective. Just consider those as analogues to subject and object — Merkwurdichliebe
It's only here, among 'philosophers', where I am 'attempting to dictate language'. But consider that you've been using language wrong, from the very beginning. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.