Philosophy Now Forum

Think of a meme as a gene. The gene carries the DNA of the human body and passes it on. The meme carries the DNA of a cultural body and passes it on.

The dialectic is probably not the best means I could have used to explain the difference between ideas and memes.

Anyway, I would like to go on but I am being called to dinner. More later as I chew on it.

Memes is a system, ideas is not.

SO what you are trying to say is "duh, like I saw it on tv or summink?"

A meme is nothing. It adds nothing.
A meme is an idea which is made bereft of all of its meaning except its reproduction and survival.
The entire idea of memes is just another empty meme.

I am thinking that this is one of most significant posts on the forum because it involves a very salient aspect of culture. Examining memes as 'cultural units of imitation' can help us understand the differences between cultures, why one culture accepts some folkways as norm while another doesn't.

Secularism is a social norm that started off as a meme. This meme over time has weaned societies off the notion of religion as a governing principle.

The idea, or theory, of secularism came into play in the 17th century. Today, for most of us, secularism is a rational, enlightening idea. It makes sense to have freedom of religion/from religion and the separation of Church and State. But when the idea was introduced in the 17th century, for many it was an irrational, idiotic idea.

Without secularism our modern/postmodern world would not be possible. But secularism did not just happen like that. It had to evolve culturally so it could be absorbed. The idea could not just be rammed down our throats. It had to happen slowly because of our deficiencies and fear of change. Cultural attitudes had to change in order to make secularism possible, which took time. The evolutionary change that occurred to make secularism culturally acceptable happened by way of the meme. Through this meme each generation attached and passed on its bit of understanding and change in attitude to the next generation, which in turn added a bit more understanding and change (information) to it. Via the evolution of this cultural unit secularism progressively became a reality and a bulwark of democratic societies.

In the 17th century secularism was just an idea, a figment of the imagination. The meme, though, via its cultural evolution and transmission, made it a functioning aspect of our world. It could be said that the meme made the idea of secularism operational, giving it legs, so to speak.

Your postings always give me a laugh.
What is really amusing with this one is summed up in the term 'special case pleading'. When it suits you to define and idea as a meme, you do so, when it does not , you don't. This points to a sad deficiency in your basic thinking that is so characteristic of your even more amusing reflections on Capitalism.

"Irony" could be a meme.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Networking" sounds like a recent meme to me.

When our ancestors chased a mammoth they cooperated. Did they have a word for cooperation ?
Lions or wolves also cooperate during a hunt but they do not have a word for it.

Is is necessary for a meme to have a name ?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Destructive behavior" is one of Dr. Laura´s favorite memes ... .

I believe memes are 80% BS and 20% worthwhile, if they are ideas that are proved right, which I think they are really. Problem is, that often, ideas are just shared because they nicely keep a conversation going, keeping us on the same page and synchronizing our thought, talk or even action, simply because what is confirmed all the time, can easily be interpreted as independent while actually it is totally dependent on wishing to be with the other, with the group or even be connected to reality (again). René Girard, Algerian priest and philosopher in his late 80s, coined this "mimetic desire" and used it to explain group formation in the widest sense (civilizations), and creating scapegoats when civilization can no longer procrastinate aggression (unable to do away with power and abusing it in the end) "civilly", using the beginning of our own civilization as a prime example. What I dislike the most about such mimetics, is the use of confirmation that is dependent as independent in democratic voting, for it can then be used to change history and not for the better. When I discovered that, I instantly turned conservative having been progressive before. I consider collectivism also to be dependent, be it indirectly, because what is independently rejected is a common enemy, which can unionize people as if they were dependent upon each other, which they are, frankly. Groupsism or cronyism, left or right, indirectly or directly people depend on each other and cannot do without for proper confirmation, it seems.

A meme is ideas having sex.



It is silly to think this. Things take time to develop. Networking, such we have today, like civilization itself, took millenniums to develop.

I thought the explanation for the term "networking" becoming popular would have been due to it being a term transferred from computing?

Yes, but did it develop because of the meme or regardless of the meme ?

I think that a meme needs a name in order to exist.
Cooperation is a possible meme. Did Shakespaere use it at least one time in his works ?

Wolves have cooperated for millenia without the meme "cooperation".

Try it this way duszek,

See how the term "meme" is actually nonsense at times but that if we use it we can sound as though we are saying something but that in general we don't need it.

I do not quite agree, Arising.

The same idea can have several different names:

there are synonyms in one language and there are different names for the same idea in different languages.

So I would say: does an idea need a name in oder to exist ?

I think that it does.

Wolves have no idea of cooperation, they act instinctively.
Or do they ?

Re: The same idea can have several different names.

We need to avoid both different names for the same idea and the same name for different ideas.

Yes, Ron, I agree that it would be better to avoid several names for the same idea.
But would this not lead to an impoverishment of language ?

What you say presupposes that an idea needs a name.
Or do you think that an idea can exist without a name ?

Hello Duszek, no I think it would enrich language by making it more clear and distinct. An idea, after it has been realized or even just mentioned or thought of, needs a name like everything real does, else we cannot think, say or do anything about it.