How deep do you blades really think?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Insurgency, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. Plato, Aristotle, Condorcet, Roussseau and other political thinkers have argued that human beings can overcome their estrangement through reason. Hobbes, Burke, Hume and others thought that human beings are not sufficiently rational to overcome their estrangement with reason. What do you believe?

    [Note: I have estrangement defined as alienation, or treating others as strangers due to social, economical, or physical (etc) differences. Thats just mine, you probably have your own]

    After that, you can think about this next question.

    Suppose that an alien group of scientists wish to study human nature. They decide to take 30 people from various regions of the Earth, various backgrounds, and place them on a deserted island, which the aliens would then watch to see how they interacted. Now, after pondering over the conflict of estrangement, do you think the alien scientists would see that humans are co-operative, conflictual, or possibly something else?


    If you've taken political philosophy classes, this is nothing new for you. If you have taken these classes, please share your opinions to allow fuel for thought for some of the other members on this forum.

    -fatblunts
     
  2. 1. can overcome with reason

    2. they would see us primitive creatures, stupid. like us watching a documentary of 30 random lions put together on an island
     
  3. 1. then why is reason not used more? does religion come into conflict with reason?

    2. primitive creatures? our limbic system is the only thing that makes us primitive. we are much more advanced than our primitive ancestors, but yes we are still primitive in a sense.

    Also, the lions would most likely do the same thing as humans. They would form prides, and when these prides come into conflict there most likely would be a fight of some kind over dominance, maybe who gets to eat first, or even to protect others in their own prides. Although lions are much more primitive, we see similar traits. So now we are left with the question, can advanced beings completely surpass their primitive states?

    Which now goes back to question number 1, if we can not get passed our primitive state, how can we truly overcome estrangement with reason?
     
  4. i think the answer to all your questions is that humans can be extremely stupid

    your whole lion speech was my point, lions would do the similar thing as us because theyre like us... urge to survive, gettin lion puss... except theyre more primitive, right?

    aliens (assuming theyre still super smart) would see and recognise that humans are more advanced than most other creatures (could be loads alien species out there :p ) but nowhere near as smart as them

    i guess human emotion is a big part aswell, i think that plays a big part in our stupidity as a species



    :smoke: :smoke:
     

  5. Lets think of something beyond "humans are just stupid".

    We can even reverse this question if you like.

    So if humans took 30 "super smart" aliens and put them on an island, are you implying that these aliens would immediately form friendships with everyone? You are now assuming that they would all know the correct way to start, form, and maintain a small society. Still assuming these aliens are super smart, wouldn't it be smart to exploit the weak to gain further advancement towards a greater good? Would these aliens just act primitive like us?

    Plato's theory, Princle of Specialization, now comes into this discussion.
     
  6. I dont deep really think.
     
  7. If I was one of those 30 people, I'd put any differences I had aside and learn to live with it. I would do what it takes to survive, but I wouldn't make it any harder than it needs to. Me thinks if you can't get along with 29 other people to survive, you need to take a look at your ethics.
     
  8. Once again, what about those other 29? What if they believe in stronger over weak, and you happen to be weak? If they turned against you, would you try and put your differences aside or would you fight to make your opinion more influencial?
     
  9. #9 mrgoodsmoke, Sep 1, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2010
    I always think of reason and rationality as two seperate things.

    Reason, to me, is almost always arbitrary and philosophically incorrect, (by my definition), any therefore, and act can be reasonable, so long as it's reasoned.
    ex. "i murdered my family because the dog told me too", gives a reason, but seems highly irrational.
    I'm debating w/ myself right now whether or not I think they are mutually exclusive of if one entails the other.

    Rationality on the other hand, is more a systemization of information such that no act would be done by an agent if it contradicted his other beliefs, regardless of whether or not he could give a reason.

    That's pretty flimsy I know, but come back and I'll try no narrow it down to the real meat of the matter.

    Also, I find it best to have these types of conversations outside the bounds of religion, politics and social constructs, because those are merely the results of varying types of phenomenon and not just of the application, (or lack thereof), or reason or rationality.


    Edit: I see that you're asking what the alien scientists would observe in humanity. And it seems you're asking whether or not people are inherently cooperative or competitive.
    This seems like the kind of question that might give rise to something like...........game theory? Good ol Mortgenstern and von Neuman.

    He's a comeback question....do you think that the constructs of game theory are postulated onto things or derived from them? Is it hard wired for human beings to either cooperate or compete given variances in circumstances and environment?
     

  10. No, I am asking whether or not these aliens would see humans successfully create a 30 person society or would they break off into tribes that have similar beliefs. Would they put differences aside and view everyone as equal; or would they sacrifice what is needed in order to survive?

    A question to ponder. Pretend you were one of the 30. Would you kill one or two of the others to continue to survive? If so, how do you pick which ones? If not, then what do you do for survival?

    I believe humans beings are wired to do justice or injustice. I can smoke a bowl if you would like me to continue :D
     
  11. I think human's can override primordial urges if there brain capacity allows them. As long as you are able to think you're way out of something, I do believe it is possible. Only the people with very strong irrational beliefs will not be able to think their way out of something. ie. If somebody was completely focused on their inability to do something while they were attempting to do that something, maybe for example shoot a basketball into a hoop, the more the odds are going to be against them to sink that ball.
     

  12. I remember the myth of the metals that he talked about or whatever it was called. Gimme a little bit on that specialization thing. Is it like the reds vs. experts thing?

    I'm not sure about what those people on the island would do. I think that it'd end up being a balance between the social and individualistic natures that would both be motivators in any given individual in varying degrees.

    BUT....I'd like to think they'd all get along. I don't think it's always smart to exploit others. There's a really good paper by a guy named David Kellogg Lewis about something similar to that's called....fuck I can't think of it.....but it's about the tacit agreements that apparently exist preventing exploitation ad infinitum from being the case in the real world.
     
  13. Human "reason" is nothing but the conglomeration of many genes constantly yelling "Replicate me!" To focus on conflict between humans misses one of the key concepts about evolution. The replicators are the genes, not the organisms. Human reproduction is simply a byproduct of genetic replication.

    There is no reason to believe that biological evolution on any other planet would happen any differently. Of course, we've only got one real example to go off of at this point, but advances in physics and astronomy suggest that matter builds up complexity in a similar way all throughout the universe.

    A truly "enlightened" civilization would see us as products of our evolution, quite simply. Nothing more and nothing less. We have very little responsibility for the particular lives that we find ourselves in, and any "enlightened" biological organism that is a product of evolution would necessarily sympathize with this plight on some level.
     
  14. This question solely depends on the traits, characteristics and personalities of the subjects. That being said, I believe the aliens would witness every possible outcome of human interaction throughout an extended time frame.
     
  15. #15 Insurgency, Sep 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 2, 2010

    Each individual will be good at their own thing. A few might end up being a really good food gatherer or hunter, maybe some find a way to provide basic medical treatments, like broken limbs or even headaches. Someone might figure out how to make shoes out of items provided by nature. Once we have these laborers established, it then brings up the issue of payment. How do we determine who gets paid more, or should everyone be equal? If we have different payments, we are going to have different social classes, which in turn create differences. We can see that very well in todays society. Hopefully you get the jist, it goes much deeper than that.

    And dont we all wish we could just along :(


    Couldn't they also see us as an example of how they came to be? If we agree that biological evolution wouldn't happen any differently, couldn't these alien's ancestors once have been like "us"? Eventually one species on whatever planet would emerge consciously, I mean we did so the probability is possible


    So if these 30 people's minds were whiped clean and all they know is they live on this island and believe they always have been, would humans still have every possible outcome of human interaction?
     
  16. People use "reason" to justify their actions all the time.
     
  17. Really? So what do you consider justice then? Anything the individual feels is right? You should say People try and "reason" to "justify" their actions.
     
  18. Are we about to act out the dialogs?

    What is justice? What it piety?
     
  19. #19 Insurgency, Sep 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 2, 2010

    I just believe justice is the foundation of civilization. It must first be defined before even attempting to predict how humans will act with others, because everyone has a different definition. The answer is not as simple as "People use "reason" to justify their actions all the time." because we have two debatable definitions in that statement.
     
  20. That's my thing. Reason can be used to "prove" opposites.

    It's that rationality that doesn't contain the subjective element.
     
Loading...

Share This Page