Author Topic: Oh no. Oh God no.  (Read 27845 times)

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #195 on: May 01, 2008, 04:00:39 pm »
Fight x4 meant retaliate with your excruciatingly long posts.  Words are weapons.  A few sharp quips would do the trick but I suppose a dump truck full of dull ones would do just the same. meh, I say.
Thought is not the only one guilty of this, so it would not be just to pick him out of the 'crowd'.

I know.  I just happened to be annoyed at the time, as two recent posts of mine were responded by Thought with an unnecessary explanation as I was only being sarcastic and/or joking and it seemed like he took it seriously...anyways...work is done I am going home  8)  and I don't mind Thought's long posts...because I don't read them  (too long when at work!) :)

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #196 on: May 01, 2008, 04:14:26 pm »
In advancing your solution to this riddle, you are reduced to denying the validity of our own perceptions. That’s not much of a solution, methinks.

Think harder, then.

My solution to the riddle is that an omnipotent being could create an answer that is neither "yes" or "no," as by definition it would have the power to do so, and then I displayed a possible example of a  such an answer (that answer being, essentially, "both"). I stated something could exist and gave an example. Or, in other words, I presented a hypothesis and gave an example of such a hypothesis in "the real world" (and I am using "real world" very loosely, just to mean something that I didn't make up and that isn't in this thread or limited to this forum). If you are to reject that, then you task is rather simple; find the flaws in the methodology.
There are actually many 'actual' real world examples of the yes-no(both or neither) paradox(which ironically dispels the label); for example:
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 04:18:24 pm by BROJ »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #197 on: May 01, 2008, 04:15:49 pm »
I know.  I just happened to be annoyed at the time, as two recent posts of mine were responded by Thought with an unnecessary explanation as I was only being sarcastic and/or joking and it seemed like he took it seriously...anyways...work is done I am going home  8)  and I don't mind Thought's long posts...because I don't read them  (too long when at work!) :)

But humor and sarcasim are such wonderful tools for finding truth! In fact...

...

...crap, I'm doing it again, aren't I?

EDIT: Thanks for the info, BZ. Terribly fascinating indeed.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 04:18:33 pm by Thought »

Anacalius

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 286
  • Boredom is not a burden that anyone should bear.
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #198 on: May 01, 2008, 04:18:46 pm »

Are you rejecting ranking systems on principle, or are you simply rejecting the specific ranking systems implicitly under discussion? The former smacks of foolhardiness or, worse, pettiness, and I’d like to see your reasoning if indeed that is what you meant. The latter is petulant and, possibly, ill-informed of you, and, in that case, I’d like to see your critique of said ranking systems.

Ranking systems in general, as a result of having read The Homework Myth.

Ranking without context is useless. Let us imagine a student who ranked dead last in their academic class. What useful information does such a ranking provide to us? That student might have scored 99% on all academic work, but if everyone else scored 99.1% or better, how is that bad? Yet in reverse, a student who ranked first might have still scored unacceptably low at 2%. In the former case, everyone should be praised, and in the latter, everyone reprimanded. Ranking systems are meaningless without context (and if we have the context, we don't really need ranking except as, say, an alternative to ordering things alphabetically). I find taking pride in being #1 about as meaningful as taking pride in coming first in the alphabet, or reviling being dead last as meaningful as reviling the letter z.

You both have good points, but I would like to say that "Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.
If I were to be ranked on how insightful or well I have posted on this thread, I would be towards the bottom, I think. Yet I feel I am one of the few people in this thread that have actually tried to LEARN something, instead of just proving myself right (Not going to name names, you know who you are). In this aspect, I think I have performed well, but a ranking system would probably send me towards the bottom, since I'm pretty uneducated in a lot of things, but I still try to get involved and learn something and try to stress points I believe are important. Most people use education as a weapon to prove, I use it as a tool to learn, which is what the point of education IS to begin with. Again, I'm not going to name names, you know who you are. If you enter this (Or any other) thread to prove a point alone, you have failed before you started, for you must also be willing to listen and try to learn from the responses you will get, or else you are only a burden to the thread and advancement therein.

That being said, this is probably one of the best religious threads I have ever seen. Most would have ended with me and ZeaLity's hostility, yet this one recovered and I, for one, have looked back on the pointless hostilities therein and learned something from them, and I hope others have as well. How many others would just try to defend themselves to the bitter end? I think ZeaLity and I had a poor conversation, but at least we both realised it enough to end it and move on instead of just endlessly firing at each other pointlessly.

You guys are saying things like "This thread has gone on too long" and it's just nonsense. As long as there is intelligent conversation to be had, then it should continue. Why end something good?

However, if you are losing interest or motivation yourself, than yes, you should drop out. But if you are (I'm not saying you are, because I don't know) only doing so because of posts like this -

I am getting sick of this topic...

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Then I would urge you to reconsider. Boos from the crowd isn't going to keep the athlete from trying, eh?

As for those who are posting things like "I am getting sick of this topic", knock it the fuck off. If you're sick of it, stay the fuck out. So tired of random people jumping in the middle of a conversation and saying something pointless. Whether you meant something else or something deeper or not, you're post still blows ass, and is evident you only put about 30 seconds of thought into it. If you wanna make a point, make it, and make it well (Or at least TRY to). Don't post one sentence and expect people to not take it seriously or get upset that you are disrupting the conversation, which in turn leads to them to empty a -


dump truck full of dull ones

on you. Seriously, what did you expect? If you got something to actually say, then say it, and say it intelligently.

Now, let me predict you try to defend yourself by stating that your post was somehow beneficial.... In which case, let me quote you ahead of time -

blah blah. 

I know.  I just happened to be annoyed at the time, as two recent posts of mine were responded by Thought with an unnecessary explanation as I was only being sarcastic and/or joking and it seemed like he took it seriously...anyways...work is done I am going home  8)  and I don't mind Thought's long posts...because I don't read them  (too long when at work!) :)

*sigh*
If you're not reading the content of this thread, why are you participating?  :?

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #199 on: May 01, 2008, 04:25:22 pm »
I know.  I just happened to be annoyed at the time, as two recent posts of mine were responded by Thought with an unnecessary explanation as I was only being sarcastic and/or joking and it seemed like he took it seriously...anyways...work is done I am going home  8)  and I don't mind Thought's long posts...because I don't read them  (too long when at work!) :)

But humor and sarcasim are such wonderful tools for finding truth! In fact...

...

...crap, I'm doing it again, aren't I?

ahah :) Reminds me of Reid from Criminal Minds.

stuff

wasn't talking to you.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 04:30:23 pm by placidchap »

secondrate

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #200 on: May 01, 2008, 06:31:20 pm »
A person cannot be "ranked" based on their passions and interests.

As for responding to the argument, back on page 1:

Dreams/Wishes spawn religion. Curiosity spawns science.

Plain and simple.

Naturally, the religious are curious about their dreams. This spawns their science.

Those who set goals achieve them through trial and error.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #201 on: May 01, 2008, 10:28:27 pm »
Quote
"Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.

I must be able to be a "better human being" than the next, or there is little reason to improve or behave ethically.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #202 on: May 01, 2008, 10:40:24 pm »
Quote
"Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.

I must be able to be a "better human being" than the next, or there is little reason to improve or behave ethically.
Such is a vain quest when being 'a "better human being" than the next' will only result in learning that you, yourself, are but a mere human as well; rather a more meritable quest would be to search for enlightenment, be it spiritual or secular, than participate in the 'rat race' that is competitive human worth.

But for the record, I know your intentions, regardless of their disposition, are 'pure', and for that I respect you.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #203 on: May 01, 2008, 11:22:48 pm »
Well done, Thought. Perhaps my favorite post of yours to date. Once again I find I cannot quite yet leave. One last shot!

Quote from: Thought
So yes, "Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!," but when used properly, that is the same as yelling "Teach! Teach! Teach! Teach!" (not that I am specifically "teaching" Lord J, or anyone else, anything. Rather, the conflict itself hopefully instructs).

If you go back in time and read my earlier debates on the Compendium, you will be able to chart the course of my intellectual progression over several years. Here in this place—and elsewhere, of course—I’ve had plenty of good practice to hone my ideas, encounter new ones, and generally strengthen my philosophy.

I don’t often admit it, and perhaps even less do I show it, but the educational value is the top reason I’ve ever debated here. Perhaps someday I will be able to use these arguments in a more mature form, on a more serious platform, and to thank for my abilities will I have experiences like this.

However, and however unlikely it may seem to you, I don’t prefer debates. I don’t like that style of engagement. I prefer questions. This “pure interest” stuff of yours is much more fascinating, personally.

Quote from: Thought
After all, historically gold has had a high value but it is was also a rather unimportant commodity for much of that time, given its poor practical implementations (it is only in the modern era when gold's electrical conductivity is so coveted that I'd say it has become actually important).

Gold goes back pretty far. You should go into my other thread and see Episode 2 of Connections, which begins with the ancient discovery of a rock that indicates the purity of gold by a scratch test.

(Unless, of course, by “modern era” you were referring to all of recorded human history…)

Quote from: Thought
Quote from: Josh
The intellectual manipulation known as bargaining (and with it economics) would only come into being once humans developed civilization, since it was from the manual manipulation of tangible things that all intellectual manipulation followed, and in our story these humans aren’t to that point in history yet.

An interesting concept; not that bartering is dependent on "Civilization" (the way most people understand the word, bartering it not so limited). Rather, it is interesting in the claim action has to predate conception. Generally, I'd argue the opposite; that the idea has to predate the implementation. Anywho, for this specific case I am curious then as to if you'd classify bonobos as having a civilization (as they have bartering)? (just perform a quick word search for "barter" in that artical to find specifically what I mean).

After years of consideration, I don’t think I accept as legitimate the popular, chicken-egg dilemma of conceptualization versus action. Action came first, not sentient thought. Humans had a full set of motivations for their actions long before they achieved consciousness: These motivations were instinctual—and what wasn’t done by instinct, was done by the example of older humans, all the way back in time, beyond humans, to the earliest animal behaviors. Conditioning and instinct…all the building blocks an animal needs to thrive.

As sentient thought came into the human world, then conceptualization began, because every one of our sentient thoughts is mediated by the concept, as the will which considers them is itself no less an abstraction; therefore the two are inseparable. Therefore, actions with a conscious motivation must indeed be preceded by at least some degree of conceptualization. Clear?

And bonobos…I admit ignorance. Not just with bonobos in particular; I have judged myself over the years to be as-yet unqualified to make interpretations as to the degree of sentience possessed by some of the other animal species on this planet, such as grey parrots, dolphins, ravens, and several primates. There is simply too much interesting information about them that I do not yet know, and the boundary between sentience and none is an amorphous, large area.

However, I can tell you my definition for civilization: When I use that word, I almost always use it intentionally to describe something that perhaps would better be represented by “Civilization,” with a capital C.

You live in a home of some kind, yes? This residence has a name—certainly a numerical address, and perhaps even a name of affection (or disdain). This residence sits on a street, also named, in a named city, in a named geographic territory, in a named political entity, on a named planet, in a named galaxy. There is one important division, however, that we missed! Specifically this is the division between the purposefully manipulated world and the “wild.” Civilization is what I use to classify that distinction, and the “Wild” might also have a capital letter if I were being consistent.

If bonobos are manipulating the world purposefully—and I don’t mean intelligently; all of the higher animals have a considerable intelligence; rather, if they are thinking conceptually, abstractly, in determining their actions—then their societies too are a part of “Civilization,” even if theirs does not interact with ours.

Now, the reason that I said manual (i.e., hand-based) manipulation must precede intellectual manipulation (i.e., meta-engagement), is simply because of one small fact that my knowledge of history has enabled me to grasp: Every device and behavior in humanity that serves a conscious purpose, became possible from our solutions to less complicated problems. Simple, yes? I can’t think of a single piece of technology in our world today that does not derive from the inventions of the most primitive tools for the simplest of reasons, ages ago.

Quote from: Thought
Perhaps, that is really the problem of any belief system (we do a disservice to ourselves if we limit it to religion). Though he is religious, I do hope you might agree with C.S. Lewis when he stated:

Quote from: C.S. Lewis
The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There's not one of them which won't make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide.

I’m not sure that I do agree with him. You have to understand that I don’t consider him the luminary others think him to be. Tolkien was much better of their little group, and even he had a limited worldview.

As an alternative, I might prefer the Kant that I quoted to Krispin not long ago: the categorical imperative. I am a firm proponent of people making sound judgments, and then respecting their commitment to those positions.

Quote from: Thought
Quote from: Josh
Ah, religion! Bane of progress!

Ah, but progress for progress stake should well be avoided. Let progress be intentional, well reasoned, and deemed good. Let us move forward, certainly, but let us also watch where we put our feet.

True enough, but it doesn’t change my original remark. =)

Quote from: Thought
Females made to answer to males? Poor form.

This sexist abuse really is more common in the world—and in our own nation—than you give it credit for. I stand by my remark.

Quote from: Thought
As a bit of a side issue side issue, I personally find modern perceptions of beauty to be one of the very factors that limits women. I generally maintain that all women are beautiful (and I suspect all humans are beautiful, but I am too limited in myself to rightly view such); if at any given time we, as observers, see a woman who we would not classify as beautiful, the fault lies with us the observer, not that which is observed.

Yet modern society wrongly places the responsibility on the subject, not the observer. Essentially, to offer an analogy (as I so do love analogies), society is insisting that the text is made bigger (no pun intended) so that we can see it, rather than insisting that we correct our vision to see in the first place.

You didn’t describe it very well, but I see what you are saying—because I identify this phase in my feminist ideology: After winning the right to self-determination in such matters as movement, clothing, and economy, females found themselves back on the world scene—a scene still controlled entirely by males, mind you—and therefore necessarily entered into an age of sexual objectification. The baring of the female form, and the constant judging of females by their sexual appeal as defined by the prevailing majority opinion, however demeaning, is the inevitable mark of progress toward sexual equality. Eventually, slowly, the sexual taboos and repressions will fade with repeated exposure, and society will normalize. Integration will become smoother.

The key to it is recording our progress in the form of progressive laws that help new people—children—grow up with an appropriate mindset and maturity. Humans can be trained into almost any idea base, and so let’s train them into something wiser than we are doing today.

Quote from: Thought
I claim there is a difference between men and women partially because there is no way either can be replaced; each brings something different but something valuable, important, and critical to the table.

You mean they are both required for the species to continue to exist. This is in contrast to nearly all other classifications of humanity.

A forceful and valid point, but also a primitive one. In modern times we need to add something to the sentence: “…required for the species to exist to our satisfaction.” Where would be if all of the nonreligious were killed off? All of the aerospace engineers? All of the violinmakers? These groups are not biologically fundamental but they are sociologically fundamental, and thus the practical effect is that they are as “important” in bringing their bit “to the table” as are females and males. Do you see my point?

Thus, by insisting upon placing precedence on the biological distinction of sex, you are taking a rather primitive view of the world as it exists today. Worry not, Thought, neither females nor males are going to go away anytime soon. Goodness knows that, if it were possible, males would have exterminated females long ago. Thankfully, genetics occasionally does trump idiocy.

Quote from: Thought
If you ask me to play Thomas Moore and construct a Utopia, I'd propose some form of a diarchy. To relate it to a modern social structure, I think by far the best president the United States could have is that the single office should be occupied by a man and a woman (and I'd extend that to all areas of society where decision making is important, and possibly in other areas as well but on more of an ad hoc basis).

I have used this theme in my writing. I have a story where the great land of the world is anchored by an imperial seat, and the imperatorial power is shared by two mates—husband and wife in this case—as though they were, together, a single entity.

I say this merely to point out that I am sympathetic to your position. It is a much more sophisticated version of the sex quota we often see in hiring and representation. (Examples: “Fifteen percent or more of employees must be female”; “Fifty percent of delegates to the state convention must be female”; etc.)

If it is eventually discovered, conclusively, that there is a clear benefit to splitting decision-making between the sexes equally, then I might support sex quotas or your so-called “diarchy.” However, that information does not yet exist, I for one have serious doubts about it, and so for the time being I reject your premise and prefer to let people win on the merits—with, of course, legal protections in place to prevent or punish sexist discrimination.

Quote from: Thought
A very minor point, one that I am almost reluctant to state given that I'd prefer at this point to exchange ideas than debate, but the Inquisition was not unique to religion. It had a different name, true enough, but you can find inquisitions aplenty in the 20th century outside of religious contexts.

True enough. However, the engine of the capitalized Inquisition was, of course, religiosity. The various “inquisitions” of history are not interchangeable; they all occurred under very specific circumstances, and each must be judged as separate events even if we do group them, like you do, under a single word.

Quote from: Thought
My question had nothing to do with religion, with good, bad, or evil. It had to do with understanding somebody. The importance of it wasn't in the answer, but in giving the answer, in increasing understanding of the other.

I see.

Quote from: Thought
But I think you might find a deeper theme in this. I suspect that, upon closer inspection of my various posts, you'll find I often argue for more time, for us to be slow (but not too slow) in what we do, rather than hasty. Indeed, it is largely for this reason that I would probably be classified on the conservative side of the spectrum…

The plea for more time is also one to which I am sympathetic, and, unlike your proposal of a sexual diarchy, it makes a lot of sense to me.

However, I do formulate your passion a little bit differently for myself: For me, the speed of progress is not what is dangerous, but rather the agency of it is what brings us such high risk. Moneygrubbing, shortsighted companies, and religious fundamentalists in all sectors have set a tone of progress in this country that I doubt anybody would appreciate if they truly understood it.

Quote from: Thought
Indeed, it is largely for this reason that I would probably be classified on the conservative side of the spectrum (I would agree, but it is improper for one to classify one’s self).

Do you really think so? Given a cogent, aware, objective person, do you really think there is anybody in the world better suited to know that person than they know themselves?

Outside perspective is important, Thought—indispensable, even—but inner assessment…I think that trumps everything.

Quote from: Thought
I do not want to throw away old customs too easily or adopt new ones too quickly, but everything in the fullness of time.

Ah, but you see…that is not within our power as individuals. To control that would require the end of human individuality, and a presiding overmind to set the pace of all things. We can only study history and observe the world around us, and determine for ourselves which customs we ourselves wish to honor, in our own way, for our own reasons.

(Or we can take it easy and bow to the prevailing customs of the day; change is better than the traditionalists give it credit for! (And I say that even with much personal dismay over how much we have indeed lost even in the past fifty years.))

Quote from: Thought
No, I am waiting for Europe to fail so I can complete its history.

For a minute you sounded like me. How absolutely elitist of you!

Quote from: Thought
Ranking systems are meaningless without context (and if we have the context, we don't really need ranking except as, say, an alternative to ordering things alphabetically).

I’d like to talk about this more, but then I would have to think about it first, and time does not permit. Suffice it to say that the essential use of ranking, which no other method can provide, goes back to prehistory itself. Ranking is merely a formalized institution of judging value. When you’re picking onions or melons at the store, don’t you “rank” them to yourself? Don’t you feel through several of them, or look for the prettiest ones, or check for defects, or use whatever other ranking rubric is relevant to you? Or do you just throw into your cart the first ones you can reach?

As it goes with melons, so it goes with everything.

Quote from: Thought
I am afraid it is not by emotional appeals but by logic that I can be persuaded.

Quite fair. I didn’t expect to succeed in getting through to you, and I don’t think any less of you for declining.

Nevertheless, I have to stand by my earlier remarks as well. Your grasp of logic, at least as your previously presented it, narrowly on that particular topic, is puerile. I cannot engage with it without resorting to base condescension.

I did try.

Quote from: Thought
Now... an emotional appeal from Krispin, BZ, or RD might give me greater pause (please do not take this as an insult; I follow their reasoning much more easily than yours, so that I trust their reasoning more than yours may merely say something about the manner and clarity with which they present it).

Ah! I consider that the best compliment you have ever given me. It is not surprising that you have a hard time understanding me above all others. Do you know how many people simply would not have even bothered to read my insights, let alone attempt to understand them?

Thank you.

Quote from: Thought
The way forward, from this perspective, is utterly unknown. To take a step forward and off the road might be to take a step towards great things, or it may be to step off a cliff. I claim that logic has led me to this point, and if to this point, then further still is mandated by the journey itself. So I am quite willing to take that step, to leave the road of logic once it has served its purpose. It may be that on the other side of this mist the road will resume or it may be that on the other side of this mist I will plummet. But I am willing to continue in the direction that the road has led me, even if I must leave that road. After all, roads are fine tools, but they are no place to live. In turn I encourage you to take that step, to continue to where the road has only implied, to not be limited to such a dismal place as the road itself; do not sleep on the streets, as it were, when room and board may well be available for the asking. And if we die is such course of action, well then, “death will be an awfully big adventure.”

Or, to put it another way, maps say that here, there be dragons. Let's find out for sure.

Very well spoken. I am not sure you meant it, though. You are set, far more set than I would seem to be, and that troubles any such glorious vision of the future.

However, neither am I sure you do not mean it.

I know which one I’ll be hoping for. =)

Quote from: Thought
While certainly not a deal-breaker, I would strongly suggest any "thinker" to date and marry an individual of the opposite gender (... or not of the opposite gender, depending) who has studied a totally different field. It has made for much fascination. If you enjoy ideas, then this is the way to go.

The best remark you have made all day. Well put! And there is no substitute for experience, in this. Of all things, my significant other is into the field of…horses.

How educational that has been!

Quote from: Thought
And likewise, we hope that you'll have a rewarding life and a thoughtful awakening to this religion business ;) That you do not presently want such an "awakening," or even perceive such as anything that could be called "awakening"... well at least I do hope you can take it in the manner in which it was meant.

With any luck, we shall speak again sometime.

Now, as for the others in this topic who are loudly complaining that it is an affront to their precious sensibilities for debate here to have been drawn out as long as it has, consider this: By passing such absurd and plain stupid judgments, you yourselves are also being judged.

Children.

It may not mean anything to you, but it matters to the people who will interact with you in the course of your lives, or who will avoid interacting with you.

Anacalius

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 286
  • Boredom is not a burden that anyone should bear.
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #204 on: May 01, 2008, 11:33:23 pm »

stuff

wasn't talking to you.


Fail...


Quote
"Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.

I must be able to be a "better human being" than the next, or there is little reason to improve or behave ethically.

I see your point, *sorta*. I think you're being rather blunt about it though, you're goal in life is not really to be better than everyone else, is it?  :?

BROJ makes a good point, though I don't think everyone must participate in the "Rat Race". Each person is here to find their own goals, use the tools available to them to attain those goals, and try to enjoy their lives as much as possible while they are here. A "Rat Race" implies the same thing as ZeaLity implies (Though I doubt he means it quite that literally), a fruitless, never-ending effort.

I agree in the fact of trying to be better than others, to an extent. There is much to learn from viewing others actions, learning from their mistakes, etc. In fact, I say something similar in life quite often - I don't try to learn from my mistakes alone, I try to learn from other's mistakes so I won't have to make those ones to begin with.

However, all that still doesn't discredit what I was saying - A ranking system is fail.

There is no such thing as a person who is better than another person, and I am a firm believer of that. I agree that people's actions are revered as "Failures" (I just pointed out one of these at the beginning of my post), but that doesn't make the person a failure. We're all here for our own reasons, and the "Rat Race" is futile.

The best way to learn, is to always use yourself as a reflection. Narcissistic as it may sound, always striving to improve yourself is something worthwhile, at least that's what I think, but not if you're only doing it to be better than everyone else, as that is an impossibility, and you will never achieve such a goal.  :lol:

Always strive to learn more, to be better, to evolve, yes. But not to "Prove" you're "Better"...

Any Ranking system leaves people singled out (At least every ranking system that I have personally seen), and then we wonder why there are people who just don't care anymore, when they were forsaken in the beginning. "Ranking" a human being is so stupid, and I'd say that has just as much of a negative impact on society as any dogmatic belief system. To quote Tyler Durden -

"You are not a special or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost heap."

How many more vain struggles must be made by trying to be "Better" than somebody else, instead of struggling to just improve the situation to begin with? When is "Teamwork" going to actually be applied to humanity? If some chunk of humanity is being forsaken and lost, then I think humanity itself has failed. And even to this day, humanity is STILL too damn greedy and selfish to actually want to evolve.  :x

It's really quite sad... This "Rat Race"...  :?

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #205 on: May 02, 2008, 01:15:27 am »
Quote
"Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.

I must be able to be a "better human being" than the next, or there is little reason to improve or behave ethically.
Such is a vain quest when being 'a "better human being" than the next' will only result in learning that you, yourself, are but a mere human as well; rather a more meritable quest would be to search for enlightenment, be it spiritual or secular, than participate in the 'rat race' that is competitive human worth.

But for the record, I know your intentions, regardless of their disposition, are 'pure', and for that I respect you.

Quote
search for enlightenment

That is worth. If half the human race had a dream or basic impulse to grow, learn, discover, explore, and achieve, this would be a better world.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #206 on: May 02, 2008, 01:25:38 am »
That is worth. If half the human race had a dream or basic impulse to grow, learn, discover, explore, and achieve, this would be a better world.
I stand corrected then; I figured you meant 'worth' as something that can be objectively measured.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #207 on: May 02, 2008, 01:29:46 am »
Yeah, it's subjective...but important to make the distinction, oops. My journey into positive elitism has been an interesting one.

Anacalius

  • Alternate Primary Member
  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 286
  • Boredom is not a burden that anyone should bear.
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #208 on: May 02, 2008, 02:30:00 pm »
I'm with you ZeaLity, all the way.

I'm confused though, a bit.  :?

You originally said this after I said -


"Ranking" a human being is just fail all around.


Let me explain what I meant a bit more -
The human mind MUST rank humans, in accordance with what traits are deemed important to that individual person. Here, I am in agreeance with you. I MUST judge people in order to grow, myself. I MUST seek to be better than the flaws I see in others, and I MUST always do strive for this. Indeed, you are correct there.

However, the "Ranking" I was referring to is the ranking done by society, in which, as I said -


Any Ranking system leaves people singled out (At least every ranking system that I have personally seen)


Society is not capable of ranking the human species, in any way.

So, how do you feel about the ranking systems done by society?



A person cannot be "ranked" based on their passions and interests.

As for responding to the argument, back on page 1:

Dreams/Wishes spawn religion. Curiosity spawns science.

Plain and simple.

Naturally, the religious are curious about their dreams. This spawns their science.

Those who set goals achieve them through trial and error.

I see your point, but...
You make it sound like the non-religious are incapable of having dreams and wishes.  :?
Let me add one more to your statement as well -
Dreams/Wishes and FEAR spawn religion. The fear of death provides the dream/wish of an afterlife, which in turn, spawns religion.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 02:34:18 pm by Anacalius »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no. Oh God no.
« Reply #209 on: May 02, 2008, 03:15:55 pm »
I must be able to be a "better human being" than the next, or there is little reason to improve or behave ethically.

Bunk, through and through.

Being better than someone else is not a valid reason for any ethical behavior; indeed, it is a rather limited goal that restricts not only the individual but the species. I must be a “better” human being, period. Anything else, any qualifier, is nothing but an excuse.

It is by far better to set a measure for which all humans might strive for, and to that goal we can then measure ourselves equally and validly. Let us establish that a proper human being is X, Y, and Z. It is worthless to say that you are closer to X than someone else if you are still not X; if that is the case, you have failed.

Human betterment is not the literary convention of man vs man, or even man vs nature, rather it is in man vs self.

That you might be better than thirty other people says nothing about the sort of person you are (other than, obviously, a competitive person). Indeed, if the desire to be better than others is the goal, then actual improvement is only one avenue of achieving that goal, and not even the best. If our aim is merely to be better, the easiest course of action is to make others worse.

Action came first, not sentient thought.

I'd still argue that the action that came first is more of a proto-action. The end result might have been essentially the same, but the action itself fundamentally changed (and in turn the result might also change) once there is sentient thought.

To be as basic as I can imagine, life did not need the concept of consuming nutrients before life could consume nutrients. However, with the development of the concept, that consumption of nutrients changed, at a fundamental level, to what we now perceive it as.

To provide a more sophisticated example: Humans killed other human groups long before we developed the concept of genocide, however lacking the word such actions are poorly related to genocide itself. The conceptions that we now have about the actions did not exist, and it is improper to anachronistically force such conceptions on the older acts.

And to provide something a bit more ridiculous and esoteric, there were creatures that flew on feathered wings before humans had a concept of birds, but these creatures were not birds; they just were. It is only with the advent of the word that these creatures were made into something new, and likewise they did not exist as such prior.

And bonobos…I admit ignorance. Not just with bonobos in particular; I have judged myself over the years to be as-yet unqualified to make interpretations as to the degree of sentience possessed by some of the other animal species on this planet, such as grey parrots, dolphins, ravens, and several primates. There is simply too much interesting information about them that I do not yet know, and the boundary between sentience and none is an amorphous, large area.

That is too bad, as this is a subject I would have loved to hear your thoughts on. Non-human intelligence seems to first be found on earth itself; it is my great desire that we'll find non-human and extra-terrestrial intelligence in my lifetime, but if we can't understand the non-human intelligence found here first, it seems unlikely that we'll be able to understand the non-human intelligence out there. Such as this, I find to be a deeply fascinating topic.

You mean they are both required for the species to continue to exist. This is in contrast to nearly all other classifications of humanity.

Meh, that seems to loose the essence of what I mean. Remove that which is male, remove than which is female, and the physical "species," that which we classify scientifically as Homo Sapiens, might still continue. However, I would contend that by such a removal the species becomes something else, something not human. Perhaps a chemistry example might show you what I mean: one can easily separate the various parts of a molecule, let us say H2SO4 (sulphuric acid) and you'll still have very valid molecules (SO3 and H2O, more commonly known as sulphur trioxide and water). Though these are still technically molecules, apart they do not have the same effect as when combined. To relate this to your example, violin makers and aerospace engineers aren't the molecules themselves but the state that they are in; violin makers might be solid, aerospace engineers might be gaseous, but they are still the same chemical.

Remove that which is male or that which is female, and I say you will still be left with homo sapiens, but such creatures would not be humans. Admittedly, a very different classification than is standard (one probably more readily accepted in the Humanities than the Sciences).

It is a much more sophisticated version of the sex quota we often see in hiring and representation. (Examples: “Fifteen percent or more of employees must be female”; “Fifty percent of delegates to the state convention must be female”; etc.)

Quota? No, that isn't what I am meaning, unless one would say that 1 counts as a quota. When important decisions are to be made, I propose that a single human needs to make those decisions. But... I am also stating that a single human is comprised of a man and a woman. When one is missing, or when the relationship between the two is not proper, one doesn’t have a human being.

True enough. However, the engine of the capitalized Inquisition was, of course, religiosity. The various “inquisitions” of history are not interchangeable; they all occurred under very specific circumstances, and each must be judged as separate events even if we do group them, like you do, under a single word.

To note, religiosity is not religion. And in turn, while secular ideas can be treated as religion, they are not religions themselves. Strict adherence to a specific doctrine (which I think is what you are referring to, in this point) is not limited to religion. Why, you yourself strictly adhere to a doctrine (that which you perceive to be your logic and reason); would you also say that this is a product of religiosity (and thus, tainted by religion, that institution to which you find no unique thing to praise)?

Also, would you then apply your criteria as presented above to all things? That is, are the various "charities" (as a single example) of history “not interchangeable” as well? If all things occur under very specific circumstances, and if each must be judged as separate events even if we do group them, like I do, under a single word, then wouldn't the "good" of religion be just as unique as this bad that you have pointed out?

To step back for a second and trace where I am going with this:

A. It was stated that evil should be identified as such and condemned.
B. It was then stated that Religion has caused ill and aught be condemned as such.
C. In turn, I asked if good should be indentified as such and praised.
D. From that I followed with asking if one would praise religion when religion has caused good.
E. You said that you would praise good for being good, and bad for being bad.
E2. You qualified the above by stating that you did not find any good that it unique to religion yet you do find bad that is unique (and if unique, it might be rightly identified to religion and not just religious circumstances).
F. You seem to have stated that, though the bad you referenced is not unique in a loose definition of the word, it is still unique in a strict definition of the word, and so you still fault religion for it.
G. And so I, in turn, taking your criteria for using unique in a strict definition of the word, ask if the opposite is also true. Can the strict definition of unique be applied also to good?
H. The implication of this is that, of course, back to the original question. Yet further more, to the heart of what that question means and how you perceive the world.

However, I do formulate your passion a little bit differently for myself: For me, the speed of progress is not what is dangerous, but rather the agency of it is what brings us such high risk.

More haste, less speed.

Do you really think so? Given a cogent, aware, objective person, do you really think there is anybody in the world better suited to know that person than they know themselves?

Yes. For while I know myself, I am inherently biased. Our dispute over logic is one such example; I think your arguments in the matter are horribly flawed, barely deserving to be considered such, while mine are steadfast, accurate, and well constructed. You think mine are the same as I yours, and yours as I mine. It would seem that at least one of us does not judge rightly (of course, it is quite possible that neither of us judge rightly). Yet I think what I think, and you think what you think, so unless there is an external arbiter, how can the correct state of affairs be determined?

But, for the sake of this purpose, I will suppose that in truth I am indeed wrong yet I wholeheartedly do not believe so. That would seem to make me a rather poor judge, thinking myself virtuous when foul is the fairer word.

... crap, I saw Richard III last night and I think it is still effecting my sentence construction. It is hard to listen to Shakespeare's work for hours on end and not find it infecting one's own words.

And you, in turn, if this hypothetical situation were reversed and you were to suppose that in truth you are in the wrong unknowingly so, would you claim still to be a proper judge?

Indeed, it is curious that in finding fault in my reasoning you could then think that I am a good judge of myself. If your fault is truth, then a poor judge I am to be so unable to see it!

(Or we can take it easy and bow to the prevailing customs of the day; change is better than the traditionalists give it credit for! (And I say that even with much personal dismay over how much we have indeed lost even in the past fifty years.))

And in turn, tradition is better than the radicals give it credit for.

On occasion I will attend a Messianic Jewish Synagogue (and to note, there are certainly some who would claim that Messianic Jewish anything is an oxymoron), or Mass, or something of the sort. So many of the traditions in such services are without good cause, but they are utterly splendid. To see the procession of the Torah, the sacrament of Latin communion, and the like is an experience that I highly recommend. Even if one assumes that the religious motivation behind them is bunk, they are beautiful. Or likewise, the university I attended did not have many traditions, which made me a little sad after seeing the traditions at other institutions (indeed, the traditions at West Point nearly made me consider a military career, but traditions are a poor thing to base life-decisions on).

I generally like a balance between the two, between change and stability. Too much change and everything falls apart, too much stability and everything stagnates. (And it is for this reason that, if left to my own devices, I'd generally claim that I am politically and culturally a moderate; though, if nothing else, I do get amused when those more conservative than I accuse me of being a liberal wacko, which does happen more than one might expect).

When you’re picking onions or melons at the store, don’t you “rank” them to yourself? Don’t you feel through several of them, or look for the prettiest ones, or check for defects, or use whatever other ranking rubric is relevant to you? Or do you just throw into your cart the first ones you can reach?

Ah, but see, there you are applying context (and remember, I only said that ranking is useless without context... but with context, it is unnecessary, which is essentially the same thing). When looking for fruit, I can say "yes, this meets an acceptable standard" or "no, that does not meet an acceptable standard." If all the fruits are of an acceptable standard, then I do not waste time looking for the prettiest. And if all the fruits are below an acceptable standard, I do not waste my time with them. Looking for the least rotten tomato is pointless if what I am looking for is a tomato that isn't rotten at all. The difference is that I have a standard and judge if things meet that standard. If they do, great, if not, too bad. I don't need to know if a tomato is the 24th worst tomato or the 180th, I'm not buying it (of course... I don't like tomatoes, so I wouldn't really buy any, but that is besides the point).

As it goes with melons, so it goes with everything.

I do hope you see the double entendre ;)

Quote from: Thought
Now... an emotional appeal from Krispin, BZ, or RD might give me greater pause (please do not take this as an insult; I follow their reasoning much more easily than yours, so that I trust their reasoning more than yours may merely say something about the manner and clarity with which they present it).

Ah! I consider that the best compliment you have ever given me. It is not surprising that you have a hard time understanding me above all others. Do you know how many people simply would not have even bothered to read my insights, let alone attempt to understand them?

Wish though that it may be a compliment, it is not. However, fear not that it is an insult, for such a label does not fit either. Merely that is a statement of difference. I understand a description of a house design better once I've seen the house. In kind, with those that I listed, I understand their arguments better because I have seen the validity of those arguments. For you, mostly all I have is the description; I have yet to see the house, as it were.

And, of course, it is quite possible to have the description of a house design to which there is no house in actuality ;)

Now, as for the others in this topic who are loudly complaining that it is an affront to their precious sensibilities for debate here to have been drawn out as long as it has, consider this: By passing such absurd and plain stupid judgments, you yourselves are also being judged.

Children.

It may not mean anything to you, but it matters to the people who will interact with you in the course of your lives, or who will avoid interacting with you.

And here you get to see another part of me, perhaps made more clear than has been revealed in my various arguments. I loathe to exclude anyone (which, curiously, means that I am elitist as I am against elitism, but that is a hypocrisy for another day), and so true to our nature, I must not be your ally here as well.

For one, there is no shame in being a child or in being childish. "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." (again, C.S. Lewis)

For a debate, let each participate to the extent that they are both willing and able. If one sees the debate itself as having been going on too long, right they are to label it so, or at least, as right as to make any claim of perception (a right that has been much enjoyed in this debate thus far). And there is validity in such statements, since it is not uncommon that "enough [has] been thought, and said, and felt, and imagined;" it is not uncommon for it to be "about time that something should be done." (again, C.S. Lewis... I usually don't quote him so much, I am not sure why I am doing so now).

We have no control over the behavior of others, and lacking control, such behavior should not overly trouble us. Rather, if there is desired behavior that we wish them to display, let us commend that behavior through good action and good example. If humor, sarcasm, and scorn are offered up, take it and in return give what gifts are yours to bestow.

And next time, I will really try to have a more normal mode of writing. I think I've been more obscure in my composition here than is my custom. Stupid Shakespeare ;)