Darwin Meets Socrates
-
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
Darwin Meets Socrates
Steve Stewart-Williams on the implications of evolutionary theory for ethics.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/Darwin_Meets_Socrates
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/Darwin_Meets_Socrates
-
- Posts: 4430
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
nice article...
after god died, cheddar set the standard...
-Imp
after god died, cheddar set the standard...
-Imp
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
A good article explaining biological animal evolution and its problems with morality. But the article doesn't include the human potential for conscious evolution in which objective morality is experienced rather than argued. So before writing of the relationship between biological and conscious evolution, I'd like to see if anyone else here has studied conscious evolution to avoid being the lone wolf where it isn't wanted..
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
Nobody knows what human nature is; human nature is very plastic. It's probable that people who are considered runts of litters now will be top dogs tomorrow.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
"Consciousness" is necessarily dependent upon the physics of the brain and so it could only evolve based upon biological evolution.Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:17 pm A good article explaining biological animal evolution and its problems with morality. But the article doesn't include the human potential for conscious evolution in which objective morality is experienced rather than argued. So before writing of the relationship between biological and conscious evolution, I'd like to see if anyone else here has studied conscious evolution to avoid being the lone wolf where it isn't wanted..
You are thinking of "conscience", which DID share the same derivative roots, but was assumed as 'natural' as sight or hearing itself. Note this root uses "con-" and "-science", as "together with science" where 'science' origally meant anything observed via the senses. Conscience, though, is just a term that begs morality as coinciding with "Nature" in the same way the article was expanding upon.
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:50 pm"Consciousness" is necessarily dependent upon the physics of the brain and so it could only evolve based upon biological evolution.Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:17 pm A good article explaining biological animal evolution and its problems with morality. But the article doesn't include the human potential for conscious evolution in which objective morality is experienced rather than argued. So before writing of the relationship between biological and conscious evolution, I'd like to see if anyone else here has studied conscious evolution to avoid being the lone wolf where it isn't wanted..
You are thinking of "conscience", which DID share the same derivative roots, but was assumed as 'natural' as sight or hearing itself. Note this root uses "con-" and "-science", as "together with science" where 'science' origally meant anything observed via the senses. Conscience, though, is just a term that begs morality as coinciding with "Nature" in the same way the article was expanding upon.
Objective Conscience is our potential to experience "objective value" in relation to our source. The ineffable Objective consciousness beyond the limitations of time and space is our source. Everything exists within it as either actualizations or potentials. All life receives and reacts to consciousness according to the quality of its being. Life doesn't create consciousness; it receives and reacts to it according to its being.."My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla
Man is unique on earth because existing as a tripartite soul, Man is a plurality of three parts often unrelated. Conscious evolution is the consciouu process by which human plurality can consciously and ultimately become ONE existing at a higher level of being..
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
This is true for animal Man or creatures of reaction living in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall. But what of evolved conscious Man?. They have a quality of understanding reacting animal Man is incapable of.
What is conscious Man? I thought some here may have questioned this. Maybe not. The question of human evolution ends with animal Man according to the article. Does it?
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
Nick, you don't know how the world is going to change nobody does. Evolved conscious Man of tomorrow may possibly be people who today are despised or scorned as lesser men.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:49 pmThis is true for animal Man or creatures of reaction living in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall. But what of evolved conscious Man?. They have a quality of understanding reacting animal Man is incapable of.
What is conscious Man? I thought some here may have questioned this. Maybe not. The question of human evolution ends with animal Man according to the article. Does it?
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
You speak of the world and I'm referring to an individual. Animal Man evolves in accordance with the evolution of the earth. Naturally it is very slow for Man on earth. However it is possible for an individual animal Man to consciously evolve. Of course the world must hate all genuine successful efforts.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:49 pmNick, you don't know how the world is going to change nobody does. Evolved conscious Man of tomorrow may possibly be people who today are despised or scorned as lesser men.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:49 pmThis is true for animal Man or creatures of reaction living in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall. But what of evolved conscious Man?. They have a quality of understanding reacting animal Man is incapable of.
What is conscious Man? I thought some here may have questioned this. Maybe not. The question of human evolution ends with animal Man according to the article. Does it?
There is nothing more annoying and insulting than having ones sleep disturbed. The secular world will not tolerate it.If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic
Organic life on earth including Man serves a necessity. Its reactions help sustain universal purpose on one level of reality. However conscious life not only serves a reactive necessity but also becomes capable of serving a higher conscious necessity uniting levels of reality by its conscious ACTIONS rather than its animal reactions“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”
“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”
“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”
Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil
Water biscuits. (Fuck cream crackers)
True; there can only be one big cheese.
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
What better follow-up than the smell of divine decomposition!Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:43 pm nice article...
after god died, cheddar set the standard...
-Imp
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
Notice the emotional intensity of secular intolerance here. How does it effect a nation?
Imagine yourself in a mob of BLM rioters totally captivated by emotional intensity. The idea is the same for all who are willing to sacrifice their imagination to experience the truth of the human condition. It is violently rejected. This is what dooms the potential for liberty. It isn't wanted. The world as a whole demands slavery to the Great Beast now that God is dead.“Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
A great question. Man as a whole doesn't consciously evolve. This is only for a small minority. However Man adapts and is indoctrinated to serve the needs of the Great Beast or society itself which has replaced the evolutionary influences from above. The bottom line is that without conscious evolution, humanity as a whole prefers the equality of tyranny to the freedoms of liberty. It may not be good but is what humanity as a whole does.Mark 8:36
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
The problem is that biologist do not recognise the evolution of Man as consciousness. They see only the evolution of brains. They have nothing to say about consciousness. They think matter is really real. The naivety is breathtaking.
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
I think you are right. The question is if the brain is the creator or the receiver of consciousness? The answer seems obvious but why is it rejected by so many? My guess is that to accept that our brains are receivers of consciousness we must assume there is a source of pure consciousness which raises the dreaded G word. For some reason the ability to admit the obvious is somehow insulting to the supremacy of Man within creation. To begin to question the distinction between consciousness and the contents of consciousness is somehow demeaning. But why? Is it really just misguided ego or an influence on our being we underestimate?
Re: Darwin Meets Socrates
The truth is really rather obvious, as you say, but it is also very difficult to understand and believe. So people see the obvious but find it so difficult to believe they ignore it. This should not be true for professional scholars but it is. I regard modern consciousness studies as an academic scandal waiting to be noticed. The lack of scholarship is almost implausible,Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:41 pm I think you are right. The question is if the brain is the creator or the receiver of consciousness? The answer seems obvious but why is it rejected by so many? My guess is that to accept that our brains are receivers of consciousness we must assume there is a source of pure consciousness which raises the dreaded G word. For some reason the ability to admit the obvious is somehow insulting to the supremacy of Man within creation. To begin to question the distinction between consciousness and the contents of consciousness is somehow demeaning. But why? Is it really just misguided ego or an influence on our being we underestimate?
But I feel change is coming. You can fool most people for some of time, but...