OT: Anyone else just wish mankind had died out before we were born?
-
ThoatWobblerMangrove — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 11:26 AM)
What's your point of comparison? Do you have some sort of baseline notion in your head for where society is to be 6,000 years after emerging from the Stone Age? If so, how did you determine this? How are you deciding on the amount of "progress" - nebulous and ill-defined a concept as that is - that would cause you to give humanity a grade of "satisfactory", rather than your current complete disgust with your species?
My theory, if I may: There is no standard humanity could have reached that would have led you to declare "success". No matter what sort of ber-utopian society we could have cobbled together by this point, you still would have laser-focused your attention on its imperfections and declared your utter disgust with the entire thing. This really isn't about humanity. It's about you.
Edit: Not really a "theory". That requires far more testing and a much greater evidentiary threshold. Should have said "hypothesis".
Another edit: And, now Knowby joins the thread, offering evidence that Matt was right after all -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 03:21 AM)
What's your point of comparison? Do you have some sort of baseline notion in your head for where society is to be 6,000 years after emerging from the Stone Age?
"Is to be"? You mean where the societies of mankind "should" be? No, I have no baseline notion in my head where that would be.
Also, you're focusing on the societies from 6,000 years ago and on and ignoring the
3.4 million years of societies
before that.
How are you deciding on the amount of "progress" - nebulous and ill-defined a concept as that is - that would cause you to give humanity a grade of "satisfactory", rather than your current complete disgust with your species?
How about the SIMPLE RECOGNITION that "importance" is a myth?
Or that "need" (aka "necessity" aka "requiring") is a myth?
OR that "should" is a myth?
OR that "must" (aka "have to") is a myth?
OR that "justification" is a myth?
Or that "laws" and "crimes" are myths? That "theft" and "murder" (aka "unsanctioned killing") are myths?
OR that "morally right and morally wrong" are myths, confusing good and evil with ACCURACY?
OR that "property" (aka "ownership") is a myth?
OR that "deserving" is a myth?
OR that "owing" is a myth?
OR that "duty" and "responsibility" are myths?
OR that "purpose" is a myth?
OR that "value" (aka "worth") is a myth?
OR that "perfection and imperfection" are myths?
OR that "nations" are myths?
OR that "money" and "the economy" are myths?
And by
myth
I mean
fiction
,
figment
. Something that only exists in the imagination and only affect us organisms through our imagination.
Just a few of those simple recognitions on some global (or thereabouts) scale would cause me to give humanity a grade of "satisfactory".
"Progress" is not exactly the word, you see. It's a question of the truth. Of what's real and what's fiction. A CAVEMAN WHO NEVER MET ANOTHER HUMAN BEING CAN DO THAT, if he's
just smart enough
.
My theory, if I may: There is no standard humanity could have reached that would have led you to declare "success". No matter what sort of ber-utopian society we could have cobbled together by this point, you still would have laser-focused your attention on its imperfections and declared your utter disgust with the entire thing. This really isn't about humanity. It's about you.
I feel I've proven you wrong.
And there are no "imperfections" since "perfection" is a myth.
Edit: Not really a "theory". That requires far more testing and a much greater evidentiary threshold. Should have said "hypothesis".
No, you simply said it and there is simply nothing we "should" say during our lifetimes and nothing ever "requires" anything.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 03:46 AM)
If value is a myth, you would already have shuffled off this mortal coil, because there would not be a reason left to live.
But for some reason you still value life enough to not end it.
Meaning that value is not a myth.
The rest of those things follow automatically.
That's the reason why nihilism will always be wrong. Everyone that ends his/her life, ends the existence that they didn't value. Meaning that all that's left in the world, is people who value their existence.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:12 AM)
If value is a myth, you would already have shuffled off this mortal coil, because there would not be a reason left to live.
Explain your reasoning there. "Value" is a myth, it has nothing to do with me indulging my instinct to survive and stick around.
But for some reason you still value life enough to not end it.
We don't "value". That's a trick of language, not reality.
EDIT: We
care
about things but that does not turn "value" non-fictional.
That's the reason why nihilism will always be wrong.
I don't care about nihilism. Life is not
meaning
less hence nihilism is false.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:47 AM)
It means you have a value for your existence that is higher than zero.
No, like I said, caring does not turn "value" non-fictional. Caring is just caring.
EDIT: In nature (or biology, I guess?) organisms without self-preservation instincts go extinct. Not going extinct does not turn "value" non-fictional.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 05:17 AM)
And that's the trick of language. Caring is real, "value" is not. "Valuing" thereby becomes fuzzy.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 05:49 AM)
You have it backwards. Organisms have instincts. They have no "value".
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:33 AM)
Of course they do.
Your argument is that value doesn't exist without the definition, but the biological functions that inform the word exist whether there is a definition or not.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:42 AM)
Your argument is that value doesn't exist without the definition
No, that is not my argument.
but the biological functions that inform the word exist whether there is a definition or not.
sigh Instinct exists. Emotions exist. Caring exists. "Value" does not exist. "Valuing" is a trick of language.
It doesn't matter how much you care about your survival. Your survival has no "value".
That you are "valuing" your survival is just an idea in your head because of language.
EDIT: It's the idea that caring
creates
"value". It
doesn't
. You can care more about gold than about your life. You can care more about your life than about gold. It doesn't change the "value" of gold or of your life because they
have none
.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 07:28 AM)
"Valuing" is a trick of language.
No, "valuing" is a definition of a process. A process that exists whether there is a word for it or not.
Humanity has defined "dawn" and "dusk"; do the processes end if we remove the words?
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 08:26 AM)
No, "valuing" is a definition of a process. A process that exists whether there is a word for it or not.
The process of caring exists whether there is a word for it or not but the process of "valuing" implies not just caring about something but also affecting the "value" of what you care about which is entirely imaginary.
You can care about gold and jewels all you want and call your caring "unicorning" but your caring does not affect the gold's or jewels' amount of unicorn.
Humanity has defined "dawn" and "dusk"; do the processes end if we remove the words?
Those are not processes. Me moving around you and you calling it "you moving from the left of me to the right of me" does not make "right" and "left" processes.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
-
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 09:47 AM)
I repeat, my moving around you is a process but "left" and "right" are not. Dusk and dawn are not processes anymore than noon and midnight are.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 09:54 AM)
Dusk and dawn are not processes anymore than noon and midnight are.
Noon and midnight are two exactly set moments in time. Dusk and dawn are not.
They are the process of the sun disappearing under and reappearing over the horizon, respectively.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur. -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 10:18 AM)
Either dusk and dawn are moments as well or noon is the process of the sun passing right over you and midnight the process of it passing right under you.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706 -
matt_shade — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 11:20 AM)
So the Earth speeds up and slows down so your idea of things can be correct. That's handy.
The Earth rotates. We've given times of day "names". There's no different processes going on. You've lost. Deal with it.
Also, this
:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706