defects (e.g.) thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, illness, exposure, etc — 180 Proof

I wouldn't call them defects, but I would just call them reality.

but for tens of millennia so far these human illusions – sciences, histories, philosophies, arts ... fauna-flora domestication, exploration, trade, migrations – have worked spectacularly well (though, of course, not without significant costs as well). — 180 Proof

I have not said 'sciences, histories, philosophies, arts..' are illusory. Autochthonous humans aren't ideals, they are brute facts. "Why is there anything? Because." It's a brute fact, just as , for all of our accomplishments, we can't live with ourselves and we destroy our habitat.

(a) h. sapiens species-specific functional defects¹ — 180 Proof

First, how do you get footnotes installed? I had footnotes on my piece but nothin copied. Second, I'm a little confused by your comment because your use of 'functional defects' gives the sense of an ideal sapiens species, which I don't think you intend. I see our abilities relative to other humans, i.e., deficiencies/super-efficiencies, etc., but no ideal form that we should be striving toward or attempt to emulate..

And so I think of the human condition in sum as the struggle to preserve human nature while simultaneously striving to surpass (all of) human nature's inherent limits (e.g. immorbity ... immortality ... immateriality ...) — 180 Proof

I agree the human condition is the artifact, our world, which is trying to surpass our 'inherent limits', however, I see that as a problem. I think immortality and incorporeality can not be real goals and it is illusory think humans are other than autochthonous.

If the human condition is anything, it is a blank canvas.

We become what we choose to be. Especially in today's world. Because of technology.

If we choose to be shaped (almost) exclusively by our exterior circumstances and environments, that is still a choice. Made mindfully or otherwise.

The world, reality is a collection of choices. — Bret Bernhoft

I have to disagree with you. It's not possible that we are a blank slate, our whole system comes pre-loaded, pre-wired, so that is not blank. As far as choices, I don't think people choose to be born into situations rife with strife, war, famine, etc. Nobody is born fully formed and capable with the analytical ability to determine their life. Humans have varying abilities, strengths and weaknesses. One of the human traits is rarely seen, altruism, but it is there. Another is empathy.

So when you ask if "we" will survive, if you mean the current Western consumer society, then the answer is no — unenlightened

I don't mean 'the current Western consumer society'.

War, famine, and disease will solve the problem. In the meantime — unenlightened

I think that is happening now. and that is the geopolitical situation obviating any human ability to adapt. I don't personally advocate genocide. That is status quo and I have to agree with you that I don't think we will change it, but rest assured, an Anthropocene extinction event will happen in all probability. Societies rise to empires and then fall and species rise and fall. It doesn't matter if it's a suicide went or climatic geological event.

Thus human nature is a radical incompleteness that has to be completed by a cultural adaptation to a particular environment, which becomes the essence of humanity such that for us "existence precedes essence", because our essence is now learned. — unenlightened

"...cultural adaptation to a particular environment..." I agree completely, however I think that the current geopolitical situation obviates adaptation. I certainly think humans have accomplished much but distribution leaves much to be desired. I don't think power structures from any era are willing to relinquish that power. Do you think we will be able to adapt to climate change, tectonic plate shift, areas of famine and poverty in the current geopolitical situation?

The only part of this that qualifies as mysogyny is the last bit pertaining to women. The first part is ethnocentrism. — Tom Storm

:up:

But we are all looking at and for something that would unify all of us, any of us, it we found it. I don’t think East or West are better. Both hold wisdom and both hold mistakes. But I also think each could benefit from each other to build something more illuminating than either alone. — Fire Ologist

:up:

I find this curious. Does this mean a person in a wheelchair is by definition less than fully human? A blind person? — Tom Storm

That's exactly what I'm not saying, and what I said can't be construed in that way.

Misogyny is hatred of women — Tom Storm

Misogyny is not simply hatred of women. When an Ancient Greek man said I'm glad to be born a Greek, a man and not a woman, that is a brand of misogyny.

Not sure this helps much. So the human condition is simply the case that human beings live on this planet? — Tom Storm

That is what that means

How is 'human condition;' a useful frame? — Tom Storm

we are humans on this earth.

Not sure any of that amounts to an essential nature. — Tom Storm

I don't know that I would use a word like 'essential' because it would lead to a reification. There are things that are within the purview of being human, some people are better and some worse at those things ( as Jim Jeffries says, we can all do better). There are a collection of traits that may be expressed differently in individuals, so to define an essence ( for instance running is an essence of being human, some people can't run so they are less human) is to create second class citizens. In Plato's time slavery was an institution, their own brand of misogyny, which meant that these people did not qualify as essential human beings.

I don't know if you've seen it, but there is another discussion now on the forum that addresses some of these issues -

The ethical issue: Does it scale?
— apokrisis — T Clark

Thank you. I'll look at it.

'm not sure I see the difference between what you call the human condition and what you call the cloud. Aren't ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc. part of the human condition? — T Clark

No. The human condition is what we deal with on this earth. You may say that all of those centrisms are part of the human condition, but that is not the point that I am going for. Arendt, in her book, discusses the different phases of man's progress and industry and artifice as part of the human condition, but I want to discover the human condition of successful autochthonous humans on this earth. We have tech that is able to solve more problems than we are. Why aren't we? I think the failure is due to (in the past ethnocentricity has hurt people and benefited a few) technocentricity. If we discover the method of success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization, we may be able to deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, vulcanism, etc.

Humans who are virtuous, ren, have realized or perfected their nature. — Fooloso4

Thank you for your elucidation, and as much as I like Confucius, even he is more idealistic than what I am going for. I have the opinion that one of our attempts at suicide will succeed, but if we can uncover our humanity that was so successful before civilization, we will actually be able to implement all of our beneficial accomplishments worldwide. We did it with vaccination in the 20th century, but it seems we have started to regress on even that. Along with altruism being a characteristic of humans, so is greed, deception, etc.

I had footnotes on this piece, but they apparently don't come up when I paste the article. Here are my sources:
Bibliography
A History of Chinese Philosophy Fung YU-Lan v. 1&2 Princeton University Press. 1983
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Wing-Tsit Chan Princeton University Press. 1973
Thinking Through Confucius David Hall and Roger Ames State University of New York Press. 1987
Heraclitus: Fragments Brooks Haxton trans. Penguin Book. 2001
Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments J. H. Lesher trans. University of Toronto Press. 2001
The Human Condition second edition Hannah Arendt University of Chicago Press. 1998
Health and the Rise of Civilization mark Nathan Cohen Yale University Press. 1989
The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche Oscar Levy, ed. Edinburgh, London 1910

Not sure what is expected from a sprawling OP like this. Are you inviting comment or questions? I'm not sure what it is you are saying. — Tom Storm

I'm clarifying my thoughts. Wittgenstein said that when he was writing, he was thinking with his hand. sometimes you have to talk to yourself out loud so you can hear what you're saying, sometimes write it out. I didn't think this OP was sprawling. I'll have to take another look.

How is what you call our "autochthonous humanity" different from human nature? — T Clark

It's not different. I am saying that humans have confused what their human nature is. Some philosophers have talked about 'authentic personhood', etc., which seems to be an ideal, while autochthonous humanity is what humans are along the whole continuum of human capabilities, i.e., both good and bad, altruism, prejudice, and so on.

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature? — T Clark

No. The human condition is simply our circumstance on this earth. I do say that humans are under a cloud, ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc., that covers our nature which made humans successful for several hundred thousand years before civilization came about,

don't think you've clearly stated exactly what it is you're trying to say in simple words. The quotations you've provided seem to cloud your meaning instead of making it clearer. — T Clark

I'll have to try harder. This is actually introductory. I plan on having more to say on this.

Greek copy of Phaedrus:
https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg012.perseus-grc2:247/ — Amity

Thank you for the link, but I have other rabbits I've been chasing for a while. thank you.

Really? My question is specific to the writing of Plato in Phaedrus. The word/s and questions he places in the mouth of Socrates. I know the word 'god' can be ambiguous and have different interpretations, according to beliefs. What 'god' is being spoken of here? The Writing God/dess?
an hour ago — Amity

Fooloso4 could answer the for you specifically, but my reply would still apply. The word might be theos or daimon or some case of those words depending on context, however it's certainly not as settled a definition as that of modern analytical humans. Socrates had a goddess that spoke to him. I don't have a Greek copy of Phaedrus so I will leave that to Fooloso4.

What do you think of the thread so far?
How do you respond to the questions in the OP?:

What do you want and expect from philosophy?
— Fooloso4 — Amity

All of the threads by Fooloso4 are educational. I don't know that I expect anything from philosophy, it just seems to be what I do. At my stage in life I am a pessimist and I don't look for reason and purpose beyond association in this world.

I'm puzzling over the word 'god'. Fooloso4 @Paine and anyone else who is still around and interested: Why would the focus be on the best way to 'please god'? I'm not sure this is the best translation or interpretation? Any thoughts? — Amity

You need to search for each writers' use of the word 'god'. It might mean 'nature', the 'cosmos' or an anthropomorphic entity as Xenophanes spoke of when he compared people and horses, etc. or a personal involved deity in some Christian sects. Spinoza equated god with nature. Heraclitus said, "the oneness of all wisdom may be found, or not, under the name of God."

It seems you are applying a general idea to a specific time. The dramas and comedies Socrates (and Plato) were aware of were compositions written to be scripted performances. The talk of many authors of that time was directed toward regarding some as better than others. A performance of Oedipus Rex could be better than others. Just as we witness different attempts at Shakespeare. — Paine

But Socrates did not write those plays. Hearing them, remembering them and reciting them does not require reading and writing skills. This is evident in the predecessor to Attic writers - Homer. I'm old enough to remember (a very few old people) people who who couldn't read or write (at least not well) and were able to be successful because they could think problems through. My question arises because of the persistent caveat that is at the beginning of every conversation about Socrates: he didn't write anything. Onian discusses some of this about Homer's era in Origins of European Thought. By Socrates time, literacy might have been commonplace, but not ubiquitous, and it is not hard to imagine many intelligent successful people unable to write.

Of course, despite what he says here, we know that Plato’s Socrates, although he did not write, is a highly skilled story-teller. He distinguishes between the music of philosophy and music in the popular sense.(61a) For the purposes of making popular music he thinks that second-hand stories will do. The question arises as to how much of what Socrates says in the dialogues is the reworking of second-hand stories? — Fooloso4

I have looked and have been unable to find an answer to my question: was Socrates literate? Greeks, as all humans before civilization, written language, etc., maintained continuity through epic story telling. Written words weren't required for thinking through and solving problems, and it seems most writing began as ledger keeping and literacy as we understand it had little to do with a successful life. Has this question of Socrates literacy been discussed anywhere? I haven't found anything definitive on it as a requirement for citizenship in Athens.

It's interesting that you mention Pinker, because his overall thesis is simply that the world is getting better, and that this is quantifiable — 013zen

I am not of the opinion that the world is not getting better. I am of the opinion that if we are not as advanced as we think we are. It could be much better than it is, e.g., Gaza, Ukraine, Uyghurs in China, Pakistan, India, etc. I have no problem with all that Pinker states except that we still have all of the human characteristics that have been with us throughout our history, i.e., poverty, war, starvation, etc.

With that being said, I don't think anyone is willing to admit that we couldn't perhaps do better in a number of areas, but that might always be true. — 013zen

It will always be true. Jim Jeffries always says, "We can all do better." But that is not happening..

there will always be disparages among the population. Lessening that is obviously the goal, and its one we seem to be moving towards. — 013zen

Jesus said there will always be poor. Lessoning that is a utilitarian goal, however when greed snd exploitation is the modus operandi, instead of science, I maintain my pessimistic position. Why didn't the oil companies get into alternative fuel? Why didn't Tesla start with hybrid cars that recharged their own batteries instead of cars that have limited charging stations. I agree we have the potential, but...

Remember, evolution takes time. — 013zen

I think you are confusing evolution of ideas with biological evolution. Individual people 'evolve' and ideas 'evolve' but biological evolution works on populations not individuals. Modern humans have not evolved in the biological since. We have adapted and benefited from nutrition, vaccines, etc., but we have not evolved biologically. We have no new part of the brain popped out to help us deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, or other natural problems that threaten our geopolitical status quo.

AT NO LEVEL in this advance is the balance or morality ever abandoned (or can be). — Chet Hawkins

From this statement, I think you are saying that morality is a balance, not morality in a religious sense, perhaps in the sense of Heraclitus, or in a Daoist sense. Am I understanding correctly? I can agree with that on our level of resolution.

on the surface of things, you see the immoral dynamic. — Chet Hawkins

This goes with the above, but you are talking about people now. I don't think what you are talking about has changed in human nature. I think you could go to ancient writers and find the same complaint.

This flies directly in the face of all polarized foolishness like literally almost everything we see on the news today. — Chet Hawkins

It is in our nature to be tribal and technology makes it so much more efficient. The beginning of the US Constitution was not a two party system, but it developed immediately after Washington left the presidency, because Washington seemed to be the only thing they could agree on.

Agreed and yet ... not relevant. Do opinions matter to truth? — Chet Hawkins

Opinions are not truth, and Xenophanes did not think so, in fact his statement was deriding opinion. However, today we see opinion polls influencing everything. Remember technology makes it so more efficient..

Capitalism was indeed a better way once. — Chet Hawkins

Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' was not really invisible if you read his writings on ethics along with The Wealth of Nations . The problem with systems is that there is a resistance to changing them due to tribal power struggles. Jim Jeffries always says, "We can all do better."

That means we need to GET BUSY defining what is wise and what is not, for real, best subjective guesses on objective morality. — Chet Hawkins

This sentence ends a paragraph that I think you should think about some more. The Oracle of Delphi said Socrates was wise, but Socrates said he wasn't. Sophistry may get a bad rap, but part of it may be well deserved. '...the best subjective guess on objective reality."I think that is what opinion is.

Well, I think the limit to human is a problem, — Chet Hawkins

We have to limit a topic of discussion.

But I disagree strongly that they were wiser than us per capita. In fact we are wiser in every way than they were, even per capita — Chet Hawkins

I stay with my statement. We don't have any way to test, however, if they weren't wiser, none would have existed long enough for us to be here today. We stand on their shoulders, not Socrates' shoulders. We are now waiting for AI to write all of our papers, news articles, etc. Edward Fredkin wondered if the robots would keep us as pets. How wise is that?

So, refrain, restraint, ... these are fear words, order-centric. And the avoidance of discussion of morality or sins or good and evil, is just that, avoiding the truth. — Chet Hawkins

Those are not fear words. It simply means I avoid conversations that tend to idealism or religious overtones. To Quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"

My model of reality, which I am writing a book on, is for 'generic' wisdom, free from any organized religion and focusing only on objective moral truth (wisdom). — Chet Hawkins

I think Kant did that, and we are still arguing about it.

Denigration of idealism as an aim is an immoral Pragmatic failure. — Chet Hawkins

I am not denigrating idealism. I don't believe it.

People use aphorisms incorrectly. — Chet Hawkins

"That begs the question..." That is a phrase that has gained some currency, and it has been incorrectly lifted from the philosopher's lexicon.

people cloak themselves in that which they believe is wisdom, and all unknowingly, thus subvert wisdom. — Chet Hawkins

Xenophanes - "But opinion is allotted to all."

Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money. — Chet Hawkins

I say human because I want to limit the subject of this conversation to humans. I love my dog, too.

It is thus extremely accurate to say that inasmuch as most people were deeply unwise before, they have extended the capacity for a lack of wisdom to new and greater depths as time passes. — Chet Hawkins

My idea is that there was more wisdom and invention in our prehistoric ancestors, otherwise we would not be able to talk about this on this contraption I am using right now. I have to think that they were smarter and more capable than we are. I will not name a recent example, but you must be aware of some 'geniuses' whose fortunes are built upon someone else's work.

Humans are worth mentioning as greater sinners than animals (or rocks). What evolves past humanity will have even more negative or sinful potential. It is a law of the universe. — Chet Hawkins

From your speech, I see you take that as axiomatic. I refrain from words like 'sinner' and 'evil', because try as I might, I am not much of a poet. We make choices that can be beneficial, or detrimental, or both at the same time. I am not persuaded that it is a law that whatever comes next will have exceedingly 'sinful potential'. Is that entropy?

I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution. — Chet Hawkins

I do not think the situation is worse than it has been. I am constantly echoing Confucius' 2600 year old cry, "We need a rectification of names!" Heraclitus moved up to the mountains because he did not want to listen to crowd anymore, if I am reading it correctly.

Utopia is REQUIRED to be moral. That is not extant Utopia, as in realized by humanity or other 'thinkers', but Utopia as a dream, as a goal — Chet Hawkins

Utopia is not required to be moral. Living together successfully requires ethics for living together successfully. I am not a German Idealist, however I think Kant had some understanding of things required for 'us to just all get along.' And the US Constitution is aspirational, but no utopia. Utopia is an idealist concept, as opposed to aspirations towards getting along with one another and not killing ourselves and others.

It also means 'You are God and I am God and We are God together'. Maybe there was a song ... — Chet Hawkins

Way to idealistic for me. Sorry!

Umqua and Hoo were just putting ochre in their hair man for the Wa-da festival, to impress the dudes. Then they smacked it on the wall. And life was boring so they had some drawing contests. Intellectual masters might be a stretch. — Chet Hawkins

I would like to persuade you that your opinion of our predecessors is not true. Our cultural cloud has given us the stereotypical caveman, which I do not think is accurate. McLuhan in Understanding Media talk about 'primitive' people encountering technology and they assimilate it into their lives just as 'modern' people. From what I can ascertain in news reports, terrorists living in remote areas are more technically sophisticated than I am. They have used the internet, Facebook, etc. more than I have, and before I have used them. I have no test to show the intelligence of our predecessors. The experimentation and invention that were required to give their progeny a foundation required much luck and much genius. Mathew Arnold talked about "the power of the man and the power of the moment." I think that applies to our ancient ancestors.

With the advent, development, and widespread adoption of Scientific inclination, with an increasingly upward trend. — 013zen

I agree with this 'upward trend' pertaining to science. That is Steven Pinker's position. I said we are technically more sophisticated than our forbears, but we have not progressed as far as we think we have because we have the ability to alleviate much of the suffering that continues in the world, and much of it is autogenic, not just from natural catastrophes. We also have the other side of humanity: Anti-vaccine groups have no science behind them. The Covid pandemic could have been handled better if we had learned anything from the misnamed Spanish Flu pandemic (science learned but most humans did not, even some human scientists).The Q conspiracies, of the recent past, have no science behind them. Tribal distrust, in our politics, has no science behind it, yet every person thinks he is right. Xenophanes fragment 34, "...But opinion is allotted to all." Science has learned, I agree with you, but, humans, in their core, have not changed that much. "Technical sophistication, misprision and convoluted errors" is what I said earlier, and I still think that is a true characterization of humanity, past,
present, and future.

By calling her work: The Human Condition, she's saying that this is the position we are all in, aka this is the environment that we exist in, and that enables us a unique freedom that other beings don't have. — 013zen

I am not sure that Arendt is positing anything in her book, it is an analysis of the human condition in western, developed civilization, which is not all of humanity. She has provided an analytical lens for our condition and anything we get from that is on us.

I am uncertain as to whether or not that's truly what makes a human a human. — 013zen

That is a truly idealistic thought. I am not an idealist, and I think we are already all human with our science, conspiracies, warts, and all.

I just asked my Greek friend, he says it means justice. — Lionino

Thank you for making me do my own research. It also means righteousness, and it is from dikaios, which means "of persons, observant of customs and social rule, well ordered, civilized...regular way of living...observant of right." In later usage "of things, even, well balanced, regular, exact, rigid...to speak, quite exactly." This is from Liddell and Scott"s lexicon of Attic Greek. There were declension and case in Ancient Greek language which, depending upon the author using a word, gave varied meanings to a word that can not be reified, as in the word 'justice'.

Thank you! I chose isoporph because I was tired of choosing a name and the machine said that name is already taken. I've put my own name in sometimes and I'm told , "That is taken!" So isomorph it is. I will have to take some time to let your post percolate before I can comment on you wonderful observations. As far as quoting religious texts, my belief system is I like reading old literature. I can't say I ascribe to any one. None would have me after getting to know me, and the feeling would end up being mutual. Years ago, Wilt Chamberlain was being interviewed and the Olympic committee had bad things to say about him. His response "Their opinion of me is probably higher than my opinion of them."

a thinking capacity equal to ours, maybe greater than ours

I say 'maybe' because we have no way to test, however, what was accomplished from zero, the whole foundation upon which human civilization flourished, I would tend to think their mental capacity is equal to ours, and their group capacity may have been greater than ours. The necessity of their daily life was something very few people today know.

How do the drawings on cave walls imply intellectual capacities rather than simply artistic abilities? — jgill

Well, first of all, they are not just graffiti, some of the painting show depth, which requires a tremendous amount of attention and skill. The color mixes required experimentation and experience, knowledge of materials, a great deal of time was invested in learning all of this and making the paintings. It is not just someone with artistic ability picking up some material at the store and finding out they could draw and paint, they were 'inventing the wheel' so to speak. They had no shoulders to stand on. It was the same intelligence that made the first basket, the first animal bladder to carry water, burned the first brick and clay for a pottery vase. Their intelligence was guided by necessity and the geniuses made all of these things to aid in their daily life. They then made time to produce art. I would say they were very intelligent.

Thank you.

I personally, think Bacon was being a tad bit extreme (for good reason, at his time), that today, these idols are becoming (I hope) less perverse. I — 013zen

I hardly feel that our idols are becoming less perverse. Perhaps in your mind as you have grown, but, humans, in general are subject to the same proclivities through time. Contemporaneous idols may seem domesticated, while ancient idols are exotic and seem more extreme, but they are all just as perverse, as you put it.

So, it is apparent then that ideas have been replaced with ideas. But, by what mechanism does this replacement occur? — 013zen

A starting point to see how this paradigm shift happens is in Kuhn's The Structure of Scientic Revolutions.

Yes, and while perhaps appropriate, the question remains...she thinks that we are "apparently" beings meant to engage in praxis. — 013zen

Fill up life with things that pertain to life. That is not what the Greeks thought and I don't believe that is the thinking today, because things that pertain to life are necessary things: building , growing, etc.That would be my definition of praxis.

Bacon's idols were, as Bacon thought, mental errors, and that is an appropriate human concern no matter what era. I use the word idol in a common way: the Golden Calf idol of Hebrew days, rock and roll idols today. It is merely a way of speaking about mental attitudes toward anything in life. Nebuchadnezzar's idol and its destruction is a metaphor in my dialogue. It is apparent from the growth of knowledge about the universe that many ideas held in sacrosanct have been demolished. Hannah Arendt gave an appropriate analysis of the human condition from the perspective of western philosophy; I am saying there is an overarching human condition that we should become aware of if we are to prevent biathanatos.

(If) culture is Nature (which I haven't settled on) and hubris is "bad" (which I have settled upon). ...

I would not say culture is Nature (capital N), but it is in our nature. The human condition pertains to how we are on the earth and in the world we make.

2. But C is Natural, you (and likely most people(?)) say. It's not there in the so-called primal. So it must have evolved...(?) — ENOAH

My proposition is that culture is part of social human nature. The only difference between us and our prehistoric ancestors is technical sophistication, so the word ‘primal’ to me refers to something before modern humans were in the ascendency.

our human nature engages in a lot of processes where we necessarily behave as if we were two; — ENOAH

Humans definitely have competing interests within ourselves, as well as in our community: love, hate, greed, altruism, etc.

Also if hubris is nature, is it really bad? Yes, I know, aggression is nature and also bad; and so are hurricanes. But are they? — ENOAH

Heraclitus fragment 61: “While cosmic wisdom understands all things are good and just, intelligence may find injustice here and justice somewhere else.”
The universe is impartial, while justice, injustice, purpose and meaning all have to do with humans living together successfully. That’s what determines good, bad, etc. I am not an idealist, gut an absurdist. I’ve never been able to grasp essences and forms outside of the virtual reality in which they exist in our minds.

we can most effectively protect our organic beings, and the species, if we recognize that both the so called good and the so called bad are already not what we are, — ENOAH

Nietzsche talked about our instinct for survival being the thing we have not gotten rid of. I don’t tend to use words ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural” lightly because they are easily misunderstood as good and bad. I am saying culture is in our nature as social animals, and with our wonderfully excess mental capacities, we are capable of doing great good and also kill ourselves on the installment plan.

Lionino is right, the way I am using the word idol is akin to Francis Bacon's 'idols of the mind', which were mental errors. That is what I mean and also 'heroes', cultural stereotypes, ideas that we hold onto in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I am not advocating ridding ourselves of ideas and thoughts just because they are old. I am advocating using a critical eye on ancient ways, but especially on new items. Particularly in the 20th century, The emphasis is on newness, rather than improving what already exists. Tech people would consider me a luddite, but I'm not against tech, I am against not improving what is here now. Our consumer culture is all about production and consumption and that is an idol that should be destroyed.

Yes! We are able to achieve technical sophistication and gross errors.

The age of languages or civilizations is not to my point. My propositions imply that we are not necessarily smarter than our prehistoric ancestors, just more technically sophisticated. I think it is evident, without citation, that civilizations rise and fall. Why? What can be done to prevent it? Nietzsche, in The Gay Science, talks about our instinct for survival, That is what I am talking about. Humans never would have made it from prehistory to writing history if we did not have organizational skills. Ants have no writing, but have organizational skills; E. O. Wilson has stated that ants outnumber humans in sheer numbers and bio-mass. Humans are a blip on historical radar and we are likely to be obliterated by natural cataclysm or, according to the current prophets, by our own hands. If we are smart, we should be able to fix at least some problems. According to CNN there are 35 billionaires, each of whom has more money than the US. The reason why we can't fix it, in my opinion is the cloud of civilization, i.e., hubris - we are smarter and better than everyone else. I have to go with the christian thesis that we are born flawed, however, I don't think there is a savior coming to help us. I think humans are able to learn much more, but I don't think we are as smart as we think we are. Don Lincoln at Fermi Labs said that we know some things well, but it is only a small percentage of what there is to know.

Agriculture requires laws, not writing. The Inca civilization left no written records that have been found, but they built Machu Picchu. They recorded their history in a system of knots called quipus. Civilization is a human organization and I don't believe there was a Hobbesian war of all against all.

Yes, I think you are reading it correctly, however, I should perhaps make it more clear that I think culture is a natural part of human nature/existence. I think all humans are 'authentically' human, there is no need for humans to discover themselves to be authentic. I think the quest for 'true nature' or 'authenticity' results from an idealist program. Arendt talks about Ancient Greek thinking that anyone who had to "labor', that is do things that support life was no better than a slave - slaves were for cooking, cleaning, taking care of the garden, etc. Slaves gave the Greeks time to think of things like the 'true world of forms', etc.

I prefer to think we make good and bad choices, and hubris, of course leads to tragedy (homo sapient hubris). Gnothy sauton written on the walls at the Oracle of Delphi, usually translated 'know yourself' has the meaning of 'know your place', that is the guard against hubris.

Tom, my intention is to clarify my ideas about the human condition that have been inspired by Arendt's work. As I said, her book was from the perspective of western philosophy.

Kizzy, I posted this in feral philosophy. It's my first post and I'm just learning how to work this. Thanks