What's new

‘Declare India a Hindu Rashtra’

My friend,


No, it is not about I told you so... nonsese.... It is a pleasure to see validation of my sense of Humanist in you. So, let me savour it... yes, yummy!

I do like what you have composed. Democracy and instuitions of its control is a well needed yet separate discussion. At some point we shall embark upon such. Can't be seen separately.

What giveth... is that you have successfully dodged the bullet of defining Human in the context of your post. I know ye shall come back fighting..... good thing.

To make it more tangible... we can always apply the outcome of an agreed definitions to our particular countries or world at large.

Leveraging technology has brought us so far that you and I can discuss about it here... yet, our intellecutal and emotional ability to show maturity with it is suspect as best.

Existentialism had its purpose to get to reductionism.... what I miss in entire Human Discourse is the fundamental most thing missing: What is Human?

Yes, I am fully aware of what I have just written in the above sentence and its implications or percieved pertentions on my part... yet how can Human have rights...when in the emerging context we don't know /agree what is Human. Muslim, Hindu, Christan, Jew, Dalit, Upper Cast, White Superimist, Orthodox, Roman Catholic etc...

This makes the UN a tribal farce at best then....


It is the Point in the Circle which holds the Telos of the Circle... infinities can be smaller or larger... however, they have one thing in common.

Please, allow me to thank you for lifting up the quality of PDF output in this section, marred as it is by the Cow Dialectics, Rape Discourse or Confused hyper nationalism.



SPF


PS. There is The Great Blue Elephant... however, my good friend @padamchen need to return from his bannishment to recieve the Gift.

Yeah. Hopefully people on this thread (and on others), will pick up cues about how to have a civil conversation. We can only hope...

Hmm...why do you ask "what does it mean to be human"? I assume that you are interested in it for practical purposes, as a starting point. Self awareness and ability to reason are, as I see it, the two fundamentals that make humans different from other living beings. In any case, I would stick to the ontological, rather than the epistemological process here. Saves me the effort of jumping through hoops. To cite an example, reductionism itself is sometimes conflated (erroneously) with eliminationism. That would simply deny the existence of life and consciousness. Keep it simple, basically.

I think we can derive an understanding of most of what we would want as humans from the afore-mentioned self awareness and ability (need?) to reason. Our desire for comfort, dignity, rationalization - these are all predicated on that essence. The interplay of self awareness and reason can also produce that which religion claims cannot exist without it - a moral landscape.

I believe that there is no desirable moral precept that cannot be discovered through critical reasoning. The view that religion takes of us, as savages who cannot think for themselves unless helped along on the crutches of dogma, is not only wrong, but is in itself the greatest danger that religion poses to us.

There is, however, one thought-provoking assertion that has given me some pause. That is - we only imagine that we independently discover moral precepts without the aid of religion. What we are actually doing is relying on the substrate provided by our knowledge of myths (religious and others), subconsciously imbibing these lessons and projecting it as a rational, non-religious worldview. This thought has been troubling me for some time now - what do you think about it?
 
.
Yeah. Hopefully people on this thread (and on others), will pick up cues about how to have a civil conversation. We can only hope...

Hmm...why do you ask "what does it mean to be human"? I assume that you are interested in it for practical purposes, as a starting point. Self awareness and ability to reason are, as I see it, the two fundamentals that make humans different from other living beings. In any case, I would stick to the ontological, rather than the epistemological process here. Saves me the effort of jumping through hoops. To cite an example, reductionism itself is sometimes conflated (erroneously) with eliminationism. That would simply deny the existence of life and consciousness. Keep it simple, basically.

I think we can derive an understanding of most of what we would want as humans from the afore-mentioned self awareness and ability (need?) to reason. Our desire for comfort, dignity, rationalization - these are all predicated on that essence. The interplay of self awareness and reason can also produce that which religion claims cannot exist without it - a moral landscape.

I believe that there is no desirable moral precept that cannot be discovered through critical reasoning. The view that religion takes of us, as savages who cannot think for themselves unless helped along on the crutches of dogma, is not only wrong, but is in itself the greatest danger that religion poses to us.

There is, however, one thought-provoking assertion that has given me some pause. That is - we only imagine that we independently discover moral precepts without the aid of religion. What we are actually doing is relying on the substrate provided by our knowledge of myths (religious and others), subconsciously imbibing these lessons and projecting it as a rational, non-religious worldview. This thought has been troubling me for some time now - what do you think about it?

Now that you are sucking up to the chinese, let us know what your "views" are on "humanism" in China ?

What is your views on the "humanism" of Masood Azar which china has said is NOT a Terrorist :P

China-Masood-Azhar.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
hehe, what you think is clever veiled insults are nothing but plain old trolling, and trolls like you are dime a dozen. Please peddle your BS to your hate-filled brethren who are plentiful here, do not mention me in any other posts.
Dear indian,

Thank you for your post.

Ability to discern requires capacity of reversing... only then both polarities can become clear. A judgement formed thus bears sweeter fruits.

Especially so when one is burdened with titles... otherwise, bitterness is the produce.

I don't like the use of vulgar language because it only offers a shortcut and lays bare intellectual impotence.

Now I might or might not know much about your beloved india, that doesn't mean that on a Pakistani Forum I am to be bound by a qualification of an india hand, just as you or your countrymen here don't have to be a China Hand or Pak Hand.

Talking about your countrymen, have seen what they post here, on both sides of their divide?

Sadly, I haven't seen you or other indian titile holders either guiding their discourse or reprimanding them, let alone branding them with a Red mark.

The quality, the depth of their posts and sheer love that your countrymen, here on PDF, bestow on Pak or China is just breathtaking!

Consistency..... Consistency, dear indian, produces legitimacy.

I fail to see this consistency in certain quarters. My fault?

So, kindly, try to discern, apply reversing and SEE.... what my post meant. Then your critique is most welcome!

I have NOTHING against you as people. You are as human as I am.

Should the desire be too strong... you can always brand me with a Red Rating for this post or the post you qouted.


Now you have a wonderful day.


SPF


@WAJsal @Oscar @Horus @waz @WebMaster @The Eagle kind friends, of course, you have better things to do. Should you have sometime... kindly, see my original post and the one above... if you find anything offensive or dehumanising please delete it.

I apologise for burdening you with such petty things. Thanks!
 
.
Yeah. Hopefully people on this thread (and on others), will pick up cues about how to have a civil conversation. We can only hope...

Hmm...why do you ask "what does it mean to be human"? I assume that you are interested in it for practical purposes, as a starting point. Self awareness and ability to reason are, as I see it, the two fundamentals that make humans different from other living beings. In any case, I would stick to the ontological, rather than the epistemological process here. Saves me the effort of jumping through hoops. To cite an example, reductionism itself is sometimes conflated (erroneously) with eliminationism. That would simply deny the existence of life and consciousness. Keep it simple, basically.

I think we can derive an understanding of most of what we would want as humans from the afore-mentioned self awareness and ability (need?) to reason. Our desire for comfort, dignity, rationalization - these are all predicated on that essence. The interplay of self awareness and reason can also produce that which religion claims cannot exist without it - a moral landscape.

I believe that there is no desirable moral precept that cannot be discovered through critical reasoning. The view that religion takes of us, as savages who cannot think for themselves unless helped along on the crutches of dogma, is not only wrong, but is in itself the greatest danger that religion poses to us.

There is, however, one thought-provoking assertion that has given me some pause. That is - we only imagine that we independently discover moral precepts without the aid of religion. What we are actually doing is relying on the substrate provided by our knowledge of myths (religious and others), subconsciously imbibing these lessons and projecting it as a rational, non-religious worldview. This thought has been troubling me for some time now - what do you think about it?





Valued Friend,


Indeed, my intention was/is to baseline 'Human' first so that we could measure the evolving discourse. Would help to create a inwardly mobile spiral.

This Humanness has changed with every Shift that has occured through our journey as beings till now. From making stone tools to discovery of fire... fast forward to today's ongoing, rather fast, Shift. All of us adopting to it to varrying degree.

It is quite obvious that every Shift has given way to formation of this Humanness. Determinsm?

Invention of religion has been a Shift as well... just look around... how close humans live to each other. If, for a moment, we detach ourselves and truly observe... what do we see?

Herein, perhaps, lies clue to built-in need of religion. However, as we have seen that in a society where Shift is towards more development, education, rule of law and certain degree of survival security.... religion receeds back.

Regarding your question, troubling thought, it is naked truth that humans are basically ammoral. The invention of marality has only one purpose....i.e. to minimise or avoid violence as humans live very close to each other and society needs to survive in a cohesive way.

Again the need for morality is much higher in developed societies where laws are passed and refined regularly to govern/design/enforce morality. Even in most primitive societies there are forms to exact this.... however, the degree and scope of morality changes per society.

The fun part is... that all over the world... a gesture of goodness/honesty/charity is celeberated.....shown on TV and whatnot... the question arises... why? Shouldn't it be the most normal thing to be kind, honest and compassionate...? Why would Flies need a Lord?

So, yeah, we only imagine...

Therefore, can we accept our ammorality in the light of what I tried to highlight above?

If you go back to our dialouge in this thread you would, no doubt, discover that we have been trying to dissect the emerging dynamics in your good country and giving it proper context, both for analysis and retort to driving forces of the said agenda.

As the new Shift enters maturity... what is even more fundamental to understand is whether the human bodies or minds are equipped enough to adopt to it as quickly as the technology?

Or do we need to upgrade humans as well? And yes, Circle Completes Itself.... it shall bring us back to the same question what is Human... and who/what will determine this baseline.... till the next Shift.

Looking forward to your retort. Please, do the reversing to accentuate the polarities... necessary for balance.


Regards,

SPF
 
.
Valued Friend,


Indeed, my intention was/is to baseline 'Human' first so that we could measure the evolving discourse. Would help to create a inwardly mobile spiral.

This Humanness has changed with every Shift that has occured through our journey as beings till now. From making stone tools to discovery of fire... fast forward to today's ongoing, rather fast, Shift. All of us adopting to it to varrying degree.

It is quite obvious that every Shift has given way to formation of this Humanness. Determinsm?

Invention of religion has been a Shift as well... just look around... how close humans live to each other. If, for a moment, we detach ourselves and truly observe... what do we see?

Herein, perhaps, lies clue to built-in need of religion. However, as we have seen that in a society where Shift is towards more development, education, rule of law and certain degree of survival security.... religion receeds back.

Regarding your question, troubling thought, it is naked truth that humans are basically ammoral. The invention of marality has only one purpose....i.e. to minimise or avoid violence as humans live very close to each other and society needs to survive in a cohesive way.

Again the need for morality is much higher in developed societies where laws are passed and refined regularly to govern/design/enforce morality. Even in most primitive societies there are forms to exact this.... however, the degree and scope of morality changes per society.

The fun part is... that all over the world... a gesture of goodness/honesty/charity is celeberated.....shown on TV and whatnot... the question arises... why? Shouldn't it be the most normal thing to be kind, honest and compassionate...? Why would Flies need a Lord?

So, yeah, we only imagine...

Therefore, can we accept our ammorality in the light of what I tried to highlight above?

If you go back to our dialouge in this thread you would, no doubt, discover that we have been trying to dissect the emerging dynamics in your good country and giving it proper context, both for analysis and retort to driving forces of the said agenda.

As the new Shift enters maturity... what is even more fundamental to understand is whether the human bodies or minds are equipped enough to adopt to it as quickly as the technology?

Or do we need to upgrade humans as well? And yes, Circle Completes Itself.... it shall bring us back to the same question what is Human... and who/what will determine this baseline.... till the next Shift.

Looking forward to your retort. Please, do the reversing to accentuate the polarities... necessary for balance.


Regards,

SPF

Okay. So let's see...

Determinism as a basis for what? Moral evolution? For that we would need to connect together two concepts - that human actions have been historically guided by a process of evolutionary determinism (as opposed to simple reductionism), and this process inevitably tends towards a moral sense (as opposed to the blind watchmaker postulate).

If you subscribe to such determinism, would you then discount free will? Philosophers and psychologists have been grappling with this question - whether it is determinism or free will that guides our actions - for a long time now. It is, of course, counter-intuitive to deny the existence of free will. Most minds struggle to accept that conclusion. I see no need to choose between one and the other. Firstly, my views are still evolving. Furthermore, it seems to me that there is no absolute divide between them - determinism can pave the way to eventual free will.

About innate amorality - I am confused by your words. Are you supposing that we have no innate ideas at birth (Lockean tabula rasa), or that we do have ideas, but these have nothing to do with morality? The more I think about it, it seems to be the fundamental issue involved. Let me take the example of existentialism.

So what Dostoevsky wrote as a story, Nietzsche articulated as precepts, and Solzhenitsyn described as lived experience. So can we interpret it in this manner - Nietzsche merely scoped the bounds of a philosophical concept without reference to religion, being free from its bounds. Dostoevsky represents the hope that we can have a moral basis even when we embrace existential values, as these are innate to us. Finally, Solzhenitsyn is proof of what happens when existentialism takes over completely, without any reference to morality, thereby giving proof of what you said - that we are innately amoral.

So to bridge the gap between Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, could we say that humans are born with certain vague ideas, which are not necessarily moral in nature, and that religion gives shape to these ideas and churns them into morals? The reason I take the liberty if jumping straight to this hypothesis is because I think that is the best way to reconcile the incongruity between what Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn have to offer. Because the element of innate morality that Dostoevsky brings to the table can be challenged on the ground that it was not innate to begin with - being shaped by latent religious beliefs.

I think I have put enough on the plate for now. I would like to look at Nazism and its religious aspects as well, because I think that 20th century events provide an acute insight into this discussion we are having. But I keep it for a later post.

Yes, all of this would build up to the understanding that whether by design or by default, what we are as humans is closely tied to our ability to coexist in communities in close proximity to each other. Question is - is it because of who we are to begin with, or is it so as a learning process that has eventually made us who we are?
 
.
You can close your eyes to the reality. But that will not change anything


I couldn't agree more. If at BJP helm they cannot make INDIa rahshtra . Then Indian hindus will become nothing but a joke of century.
Secularism is the one of the basic nature of Republic of India which is clearly written in the constitution of India. The highest constitutional bench of the Supreme court has clear verdict over this matter that the constitution can be ammended upto that extent only which does not violate the basic nature of the state regardless of with how much majority it has been passed.
 
.
Secularism is the one of the basic nature of Republic of India which is clearly written in the constitution of India. The highest constitutional bench of the Supreme court has clear verdict over this matter that the constitution can be ammended upto that extent only which does not violate the basic nature of the state regardless of with how much majority it has been passed.
There's hope after all
 
.
Sanghie chaddie scum want to commit genocide against all Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Dalits, Adivasis and all others who don't believe in the ideology of drinking cow urine and worshipping Modi and his RSS thugs.

That is what they mean by Hindu Rashtra. The criminals have already started murdering Muslims, Dalits and others at will in the name of the cow.

These RSS rogues and other sanghie chaddie savages are the embodiment of pure evil. They are the scum of the earth.
 
.
Okay. So let's see...

Determinism as a basis for what? Moral evolution? For that we would need to connect together two concepts - that human actions have been historically guided by a process of evolutionary determinism (as opposed to simple reductionism), and this process inevitably tends towards a moral sense (as opposed to the blind watchmaker postulate).

If you subscribe to such determinism, would you then discount free will? Philosophers and psychologists have been grappling with this question - whether it is determinism or free will that guides our actions - for a long time now. It is, of course, counter-intuitive to deny the existence of free will. Most minds struggle to accept that conclusion. I see no need to choose between one and the other. Firstly, my views are still evolving. Furthermore, it seems to me that there is no absolute divide between them - determinism can pave the way to eventual free will.

About innate amorality - I am confused by your words. Are you supposing that we have no innate ideas at birth (Lockean tabula rasa), or that we do have ideas, but these have nothing to do with morality? The more I think about it, it seems to be the fundamental issue involved. Let me take the example of existentialism.

So what Dostoevsky wrote as a story, Nietzsche articulated as precepts, and Solzhenitsyn described as lived experience. So can we interpret it in this manner - Nietzsche merely scoped the bounds of a philosophical concept without reference to religion, being free from its bounds. Dostoevsky represents the hope that we can have a moral basis even when we embrace existential values, as these are innate to us. Finally, Solzhenitsyn is proof of what happens when existentialism takes over completely, without any reference to morality, thereby giving proof of what you said - that we are innately amoral.

So to bridge the gap between Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, could we say that humans are born with certain vague ideas, which are not necessarily moral in nature, and that religion gives shape to these ideas and churns them into morals? The reason I take the liberty if jumping straight to this hypothesis is because I think that is the best way to reconcile the incongruity between what Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn have to offer. Because the element of innate morality that Dostoevsky brings to the table can be challenged on the ground that it was not innate to begin with - being shaped by latent religious beliefs.

I think I have put enough on the plate for now. I would like to look at Nazism and its religious aspects as well, because I think that 20th century events provide an acute insight into this discussion we are having. But I keep it for a later post.

Yes, all of this would build up to the understanding that whether by design or by default, what we are as humans is closely tied to our ability to coexist in communities in close proximity to each other. Question is - is it because of who we are to begin with, or is it so as a learning process that has eventually made us who we are?






Dear friend,

Now we are talking!

As you tried to say in highly organised, intellectual words, a synethesis is essentially a need... a paradox that needs to be managed.

Now it could be retorted that humans are both moral and ammoral at the same time... that contradictions is what makes us what we are.

It appears that in each Shift... the reconciliataion of contradiction grows...accentuates and then becomes normal..eventually going back to subconsicious...feeding right into the collective Mind.


Allow me to invite you to visit human response to Beauty and Horror... aminals do respond to fear/danger... yet they are less reactive to grief or joy of Beuaty... more so for Beauty for its own sake.... Yes, I said less reactive.

Forwarding this thought process a bit further.... do you think Physiology plays a part in what you percieve to be innate elments to human behaviour? After all rather large brain size and not much physical strength....comparatively.

Philosophic underpinnings do afford us structured platform for developing our Thought further..

However, a wholistic understanding requires that we do take into account human body.... only then we would be able to understand both Material and Meta-Material dynamics.

Regarding the man with walrus moustach... well... he is still relevant today... more so than ever.. all that is needed to undress the body politics of today is benchmarking of laws, ideaologies or policies against his thinking.

How does it all relates to our thread title? How it doesn't?

I say that our emerging diagnostic is far deeper, much more wholistic than some of the readers would realise.

The Source of Hermetic Wisdom is mysterious... yet the Ancient Method still valid. Funny?

And Elephant is Blue.

Can we say that Col. Kurtz is a highly Moral Man?

Can we say that Madame Bovary is just a Child of Nature only and not responsible for anything? Is it everyone else's fault except her's?


Regards,


SPF


PS. Read Against Nature... in French if you can... otherwise, English would do.
 
.
Dear friend,

Now we are talking!

As you tried to say in highly organised, intellectual words, a synethesis is essentially a need... a paradox that needs to be managed.

Now it could be retorted that humans are both moral and ammoral at the same time... that contradictions is what makes us what we are.

It appears that in each Shift... the reconciliataion of contradiction grows...accentuates and then becomes normal..eventually going back to subconsicious...feeding right into the collective Mind.


Allow me to invite you to visit human response to Beauty and Horror... aminals do respond to fear/danger... yet they are less reactive to grief or joy of Beuaty... more so for Beauty for its own sake.... Yes, I said less reactive.

Forwarding this thought process a bit further.... do you think Physiology plays a part in what you percieve to be innate elments to human behaviour? After all rather large brain size and not much physical strength....comparatively.

Philosophic underpinnings do afford us structured platform for developing our Thought further..

However, a wholistic understanding requires that we do take into account human body.... only then we would be able to understand both Material and Meta-Material dynamics.

Regarding the man with walrus moustach... well... he is still relevant today... more so than ever.. all that is needed to undress the body politics of today is benchmarking of laws, ideaologies or policies against his thinking.

How does it all relates to our thread title? How it doesn't?

I say that our emerging diagnostic is far deeper, much more wholistic than some of the readers would realise.

The Source of Hermetic Wisdom is mysterious... yet the Ancient Method still valid. Funny?

And Elephant is Blue.

Can we say that Col. Kurtz is a highly Moral Man?

Can we say that Madame Bovary is just a Child of Nature only and not responsible for anything? Is it everyone else's fault except her's?


Regards,


SPF


PS. Read Against Nature... in French if you can... otherwise, English would do.

Hello...

Allow me the indulgence of having this discussion at many levels. Since this is just a conversation between friends, that is understandable, I guess.

To begin with, I would like to flesh out my idea about existentialism/nihilism, Soviet literature and genocide in the 20th century. I am quite taken in by this concept, really. So are we to accept that Nietzsche was on to something? Did he catch the true pulse of human nature? But then if that is true, then it would mean that what happened in the Gulag and the concentration camp is human nature at play!

I would like to believe that it is definitely part of the answer. I think it would tend to drift towards what you said - moral and amoral at the same time. So let us say that our innate ideas can, in practice, be a blank slate - how these ideas are fleshed out depends on the ideas that we overlay on top of them.

To give a simple example. anti-Semitism was not a Nazi invention. The groundwork had already been done by the Catholic Church. All the Nazis had to do was tap into this popular sentiment. Why I mention anti-Semitism specifically is because this is one phenomenon for which one can overlook all the other factors and focus on just one - the Jews were supposed to have crucified Christ. That one story, even disregarding all other factors, was enough to have earned them eternal enmity.

So my point is that the innate ideas that would be further shaped by Catholic theology, no matter its other aspects, would necessarily mutate at that point, based on a single story. What does that tell us about human nature? Seen in that light, the Nazis were merely the handmaiden. That presents a rather precarious picture of human nature.

So to give some shape to my odious ramblings, I propose this - whatever it is that humans desire innately, can be shaped into a variety of forms by the ideas to which they are exposed. If spiritualism is innate to us, then it can either manifest as a quest for self discovery or as religious fervour. If the pursuit of happiness is inherent to us, then it can either lead to philanthropy or conspicuous consumption. Self esteem can be found in either relationships or nationalism, and so on.

Needless to say, life is more complex and nuanced than simple binaries. Which segues rather nicely into Col Kurtz and Madame Bovary. There is definitely an element of determinism in both characters. I read Flaubert a long time back, and have forgotten most of it. But that is where we begin to tread dangerous waters - this question of whether one an be held accountable for actions attributable to experience, surrounding and upbringing, maybe even genetic makeup.

This post is getting too long...and I have to run a marathon right now. So I will complete the rest after I am back.
 
.
India is Secular because of Hindus before 1976 there was no word Secular in India.
The Legislature can actually remove the word Secular from the Constitution. The issue is in the name of Secularism Hindus are being vilified by certain crazy Hindus, Muslim and Christians. Enough of this.
The present prevalent situation = India is secular as per its constitution.
Your futile ranting notwithstanding.

What can you do about it?
Or, what can even the PM of India do on this?
Nothing.

Lol at your worthless rant & rave.

Keep on keeping on this and entertain us for free.
 
.
Dear friend,

Now we are talking!

As you tried to say in highly organised, intellectual words, a synethesis is essentially a need... a paradox that needs to be managed.

Now it could be retorted that humans are both moral and ammoral at the same time... that contradictions is what makes us what we are.

It appears that in each Shift... the reconciliataion of contradiction grows...accentuates and then becomes normal..eventually going back to subconsicious...feeding right into the collective Mind.


Allow me to invite you to visit human response to Beauty and Horror... aminals do respond to fear/danger... yet they are less reactive to grief or joy of Beuaty... more so for Beauty for its own sake.... Yes, I said less reactive.

Forwarding this thought process a bit further.... do you think Physiology plays a part in what you percieve to be innate elments to human behaviour? After all rather large brain size and not much physical strength....comparatively.

Philosophic underpinnings do afford us structured platform for developing our Thought further..

However, a wholistic understanding requires that we do take into account human body.... only then we would be able to understand both Material and Meta-Material dynamics.

Regarding the man with walrus moustach... well... he is still relevant today... more so than ever.. all that is needed to undress the body politics of today is benchmarking of laws, ideaologies or policies against his thinking.

How does it all relates to our thread title? How it doesn't?

I say that our emerging diagnostic is far deeper, much more wholistic than some of the readers would realise.

The Source of Hermetic Wisdom is mysterious... yet the Ancient Method still valid. Funny?

And Elephant is Blue.

Can we say that Col. Kurtz is a highly Moral Man?

Can we say that Madame Bovary is just a Child of Nature only and not responsible for anything? Is it everyone else's fault except her's?


Regards,


SPF


PS. Read Against Nature... in French if you can... otherwise, English would do.

About evolutionary psychology - I often joke around with my friends about its significance. They of course roll their eyes because they think I see evolution at play in everything; but to me it seems entirely plausible that our cognitive artifacts of fear, aggression, sense of responsibility, etc., have evolved through natural selection.

To take just one example, we know that some people have damaged amygdala and therefore do not perceive fear in the same way as the rest of us. I fail to see how evolution would have been kind to such a trait, to the extent that it is hereditary. The reverse would apply to traits that enable cooperation, such as the ability to function within communities without excessive conflict. This has undoubtedly shaped the course of human development. However, I think it has less significance for what we have experienced in the past century and will experience in the next - the pace of change has far outstripped the pace of evolution.

As for physiology, again, our larger brains were helpful in adapting to the slow changes in previous millennia. The modern world produces information overload that our kludge-like brains are ill-adapted to. Beyond the brain, I have not given much thought to the role of physiology. It is interesting; I need to study more.

Evolutionary determinism is indeed vital to the project of identifying an overview of where we came from and where we are headed. Let me quote a passage from an article I recently read in Psychology Today :

“Biological determinism is a canard that has repeatedly been explained away by evolutionary informed scientists since time immemorial. Humans are an inextricable mix of their genes and their environments. As a matter of fact, genes get turned on or off as a function of environmental inputs. Evolutionary-based cognitive computational systems take information from the environment to get activated. Natural selection itself, the foundational mechanism of evolution, is shaped by the selective forces within a specific environment. Hence, there is no such thing as biological determinism. It only exists in the minds of those who wish to hang on to the antiquated and erroneous idea that the human mind starts off as a blank slate. Biological determinism = unicorn. They both do not exist. That many cretins have misused biological-based theories for a wide range of nefarious political goals says nothing about the veracity of evolutionary theory whether applied to mosquitoes or humans. Evolution is the sole game in town to explain the evolution of biological diversity on earth. No working biologist questions its veracity. It is largely becoming untenable for social scientists to reject the import of evolution in explaining human affairs. Culture is crucially important but so is biology."

So it seems there is support for the premise that whatever is innate to us gets triggered/shaped by evolution, as well as life experience.

I guess that the issue we eventually wish to tackle is as follows:

We cannot deny the role of ideas in shaping our moral landscape. Regardless of what we are born with, what we eventually become is subject to the knowledge that we acquire and are exposed to. Religion claims that it is the sole repository of the values that can shape our morality in a positive manner. Humanists claim otherwise - that critical, evidence-based thinking will reveal desirable moral precepts without recourse to religion. Is that claim tenable?

To make that claim tenable (assuming that we are now in agreement that the innate ideas of humans are amenable to moulding), we have to establish that the discovery of moral precepts is possible in an a priori manner from rational concepts.

In my next post, I will mention something which I came to realize about values which has not been talked about generally. I think that the claim that rationalism does not contain any inherent value can be challenged at inception.

But first I would like to hear from you!
 
.
About evolutionary psychology - I often joke around with my friends about its significance. They of course roll their eyes because they think I see evolution at play in everything; but to me it seems entirely plausible that our cognitive artifacts of fear, aggression, sense of responsibility, etc., have evolved through natural selection.

To take just one example, we know that some people have damaged amygdala and therefore do not perceive fear in the same way as the rest of us. I fail to see how evolution would have been kind to such a trait, to the extent that it is hereditary. The reverse would apply to traits that enable cooperation, such as the ability to function within communities without excessive conflict. This has undoubtedly shaped the course of human development. However, I think it has less significance for what we have experienced in the past century and will experience in the next - the pace of change has far outstripped the pace of evolution.

As for physiology, again, our larger brains were helpful in adapting to the slow changes in previous millennia. The modern world produces information overload that our kludge-like brains are ill-adapted to. Beyond the brain, I have not given much thought to the role of physiology. It is interesting; I need to study more.

Evolutionary determinism is indeed vital to the project of identifying an overview of where we came from and where we are headed. Let me quote a passage from an article I recently read in Psychology Today :

“Biological determinism is a canard that has repeatedly been explained away by evolutionary informed scientists since time immemorial. Humans are an inextricable mix of their genes and their environments. As a matter of fact, genes get turned on or off as a function of environmental inputs. Evolutionary-based cognitive computational systems take information from the environment to get activated. Natural selection itself, the foundational mechanism of evolution, is shaped by the selective forces within a specific environment. Hence, there is no such thing as biological determinism. It only exists in the minds of those who wish to hang on to the antiquated and erroneous idea that the human mind starts off as a blank slate. Biological determinism = unicorn. They both do not exist. That many cretins have misused biological-based theories for a wide range of nefarious political goals says nothing about the veracity of evolutionary theory whether applied to mosquitoes or humans. Evolution is the sole game in town to explain the evolution of biological diversity on earth. No working biologist questions its veracity. It is largely becoming untenable for social scientists to reject the import of evolution in explaining human affairs. Culture is crucially important but so is biology."

So it seems there is support for the premise that whatever is innate to us gets triggered/shaped by evolution, as well as life experience.

I guess that the issue we eventually wish to tackle is as follows:

We cannot deny the role of ideas in shaping our moral landscape. Regardless of what we are born with, what we eventually become is subject to the knowledge that we acquire and are exposed to. Religion claims that it is the sole repository of the values that can shape our morality in a positive manner. Humanists claim otherwise - that critical, evidence-based thinking will reveal desirable moral precepts without recourse to religion. Is that claim tenable?

To make that claim tenable (assuming that we are now in agreement that the innate ideas of humans are amenable to moulding), we have to establish that the discovery of moral precepts is possible in an a priori manner from rational concepts.

In my next post, I will mention something which I came to realize about values which has not been talked about generally. I think that the claim that rationalism does not contain any inherent value can be challenged at inception.

But first I would like to hear from you!





Valued friend,

Allow me to thank you for yet another thoughtful, considered and balanced post. I am delighted to see that our dialouge is moving in the tangible direction... it is, of course, desirable to expand ideas/idation and then move towards synthesis... how else would we be able to advance understanding?


Now that we have established the role of biology and mind... material and meta-material.... we need to act boldly and ask ourselves the devious question:

What is the critical need of morality in human society?

What function does it serve?

As we have seen throughout the world, act of goodness, social responsibility and usual avoidance of violence in a relatively normal functioning society...doesn't necessarily require a religious framework.

In Northern Europe we have so many examples of this.... primarily policy, thinking by intellectuals and then policy changes...feeding into education... creating necessary conditioning in the populace... a shared ethos and morality emerges. The feedback loop continues and we do see pushing of the envelop of rights...humnas, animals and of course Nature at large.

Now is this has to do with propserity enabling morality?

Or is it inate in the above mentioned socieities? I know it is a very steep and slippery slope..

I do believe a new terminology is needed... since, religions also rationalise their frameworks...which might appear irrational to others.

This helps to shape the discourse.... perhaps scientific vs. non-scientific could be better applied while discussing.

Now the question would be what is science and whose science to use? It cuts both ways.

As you can clearly see by going through this dialouge a framework is emerging which can answer the Core of this thread title... I am grateful for your contributions in this regard.

Regarding the role of evolutionary dynamics... we need to see data as well. Why indians who moved to the US in the 70s became Motel chain owners and other minorities living there for centuries did not? Both were not white...

Also, a painful and very dangerous question that arises here.... how genes have effect on societal achievement... such dangerous questions must be avoided because bigots hijack it to their advantage. But we are taking a detached view of things..looking from outside in..as aliens!

Just a passing thought... how can humans have equal rights when moral frameworks change from society to society... continent to continent... for example why the richest regions in ME have a different morality than say Greece? So, does the prosperity thypothesis stand?


Dazzle us, please!


SPF
 
.
Valued friend,

Allow me to thank you for yet another thoughtful, considered and balanced post. I am delighted to see that our dialouge is moving in the tangible direction... it is, of course, desirable to expand ideas/idation and then move towards synthesis... how else would we be able to advance understanding?


Now that we have established the role of biology and mind... material and meta-material.... we need to act boldly and ask ourselves the devious question:

What is the critical need of morality in human society?

What function does it serve?

As we have seen throughout the world, act of goodness, social responsibility and usual avoidance of violence in a relatively normal functioning society...doesn't necessarily require a religious framework.

In Northern Europe we have so many examples of this.... primarily policy, thinking by intellectuals and then policy changes...feeding into education... creating necessary conditioning in the populace... a shared ethos and morality emerges. The feedback loop continues and we do see pushing of the envelop of rights...humnas, animals and of course Nature at large.

Now is this has to do with propserity enabling morality?

Or is it inate in the above mentioned socieities? I know it is a very steep and slippery slope..

I do believe a new terminology is needed... since, religions also rationalise their frameworks...which might appear irrational to others.

This helps to shape the discourse.... perhaps scientific vs. non-scientific could be better applied while discussing.

Now the question would be what is science and whose science to use? It cuts both ways.

As you can clearly see by going through this dialouge a framework is emerging which can answer the Core of this thread title... I am grateful for your contributions in this regard.

Regarding the role of evolutionary dynamics... we need to see data as well. Why indians who moved to the US in the 70s became Motel chain owners and other minorities living there for centuries did not? Both were not white...

Also, a painful and very dangerous question that arises here.... how genes have effect on societal achievement... such dangerous questions must be avoided because bigots hijack it to their advantage. But we are taking a detached view of things..looking from outside in..as aliens!

Just a passing thought... how can humans have equal rights when moral frameworks change from society to society... continent to continent... for example why the richest regions in ME have a different morality than say Greece? So, does the prosperity thypothesis stand?


Dazzle us, please!


SPF

Thankfully, you have woven into your response the issues I wished to raise in this post.

I view morality as an innate sense that gets shaped by individual selection into a set of actionable values. Values and ethics are the practical manifestations that are shaped by group selection as a modus vivendi to ensure that things keep moving along.

I must admit that although I am a Humanist, my views on the subject are evolving. One of the strongest claims that religion makes is that it provides a moral substrate. Unlike its claims in other areas, this is not as easily refutable. The reason for that I think is because not every individual or society undergoes the same processes and experiences, and there are certain situations that may render the possibility of moral evolution independent of religion nearly impossible.

And this is where things start to get really thick. At this point, let me abandon all that I have read about how evolution and morality work and fly blind, so to speak. I think this is necessary because breaking down the claims that religion makes requires some amount of mental gymnastics - it is unavoidable. But the clarity arising out of that makes the process worthwhile.

Let us examine the claim that religion begets morals, and that these morals evolve into actionable values. For a moment let us disregard that which is innate to us. Let us focus, instead, on the notion that science is value-neutral. Let challenge that claim with a thought experiment. Focus for a moment on the aspect of measurable/empirical evidence. It is intrinsic to the scientific method. My contention is, why is this not a specific value arising from a general sense if morality? How are we to assume that this aspect of the scientific method is a given? One can argue that without it, the method would fall apart. But I argue back that it is irrelevant. We could have shaped up to disregard empirical evidence. We did not. And several people do disregard it. I fail to see as to why something based on our subjective sense of "ought" is treated as an objective "is"? You are insightful enough to get the drift of where things go from here.

The confusion arises because this scientific values do not treat things in simplistic terms of "good" and "evil". And yet, whatever process has guided the evolution of what we conventionally understand as morality has also guided the evolution of scientific values, be it consensus achieved through a process of elimination/trial and error, or simply being dropped from the heavens. The distinction between the scientific values and morals is based on a false normative/descriptive divide that simply does not exist in this case.

So what does this mean for whatever a society can evolve morals independent of religion? The definitive treatise on the scientific method is laid out in Novum Organum Scientiarum. However, Charaka and Ibn al-Haytham had arrived at similar conclusions earlier. It is instructive to study as to what extent their work was influenced by religion. And also that of Sushruta, Panini, Aryabhatta, Avicenna, Rhazes, al-Sufi, Al-Baruni, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. I know that Charaka and Newton were deeply religious - but it is an open question as to whether the Enlightenment and the Golden Age of Islam were due to or despite religion. My views on this are evolving, I am yet to read all that is required to arrive at a conclusion.

Regardless of how that pans out, we can still move forward. Even assuming that all my subsequent reading shows that whatever we credit to science today owes a debt of gratitude to religion, it neither establishes that their method could not be discovered without any theological reference whatsoever, nor does it disallow the proposition that the process of evolution makes it tenable to leave religion behind in our forward journey. The process my be painful, but it is a price worth paying, because the cognitive dissonance that religious belief generates (indicates?) is best jettisoned for our moral progress.

Is Northern Europe homogeneous enough to derive specific conclusions from? Until recently, the Swedes were homogeneous enough. This homogeneity allowed norms to evolve through a process of discussion and consensus - something that is difficult for heterogenous groups to achieve smoothly. In fact, the ongoing situation with migration must be making this point clearer than ever before. As for whether economic prosperity has shaped this outcome, that is an area where we see heterogeneity - I am sure that the Baltics will offer a different history and present than Sweden. For that matter, even Finland was relatively under-developed until recently. So maybe it is a more complex example than it seems at first look.

Which leaves us with your very relevant questions about framework, genetic contribution and moral relativism. I think the point you mentioned about whether our norms are evolving along with economic development can be looked at as part of the framework question. At least so it seems right now. Definitely not to be sidelined though. I stop here for now and will continue in my next post. These issues require a lot of thought and I must break my sessions for want of time and attention.
 
.
Thankfully, you have woven into your response the issues I wished to raise in this post.

I view morality as an innate sense that gets shaped by individual selection into a set of actionable values. Values and ethics are the practical manifestations that are shaped by group selection as a modus vivendi to ensure that things keep moving along.

I must admit that although I am a Humanist, my views on the subject are evolving. One of the strongest claims that religion makes is that it provides a moral substrate. Unlike its claims in other areas, this is not as easily refutable. The reason for that I think is because not every individual or society undergoes the same processes and experiences, and there are certain situations that may render the possibility of moral evolution independent of religion nearly impossible.

And this is where things start to get really thick. At this point, let me abandon all that I have read about how evolution and morality work and fly blind, so to speak. I think this is necessary because breaking down the claims that religion makes requires some amount of mental gymnastics - it is unavoidable. But the clarity arising out of that makes the process worthwhile.

Let us examine the claim that religion begets morals, and that these morals evolve into actionable values. For a moment let us disregard that which is innate to us. Let us focus, instead, on the notion that science is value-neutral. Let challenge that claim with a thought experiment. Focus for a moment on the aspect of measurable/empirical evidence. It is intrinsic to the scientific method. My contention is, why is this not a specific value arising from a general sense if morality? How are we to assume that this aspect of the scientific method is a given? One can argue that without it, the method would fall apart. But I argue back that it is irrelevant. We could have shaped up to disregard empirical evidence. We did not. And several people do disregard it. I fail to see as to why something based on our subjective sense of "ought" is treated as an objective "is"? You are insightful enough to get the drift of where things go from here.

The confusion arises because this scientific values do not treat things in simplistic terms of "good" and "evil". And yet, whatever process has guided the evolution of what we conventionally understand as morality has also guided the evolution of scientific values, be it consensus achieved through a process of elimination/trial and error, or simply being dropped from the heavens. The distinction between the scientific values and morals is based on a false normative/descriptive divide that simply does not exist in this case.

So what does this mean for whatever a society can evolve morals independent of religion? The definitive treatise on the scientific method is laid out in Novum Organum Scientiarum. However, Charaka and Ibn al-Haytham had arrived at similar conclusions earlier. It is instructive to study as to what extent their work was influenced by religion. And also that of Sushruta, Panini, Aryabhatta, Avicenna, Rhazes, al-Sufi, Al-Baruni, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. I know that Charaka and Newton were deeply religious - but it is an open question as to whether the Enlightenment and the Golden Age of Islam were due to or despite religion. My views on this are evolving, I am yet to read all that is required to arrive at a conclusion.

Regardless of how that pans out, we can still move forward. Even assuming that all my subsequent reading shows that whatever we credit to science today owes a debt of gratitude to religion, it neither establishes that their method could not be discovered without any theological reference whatsoever, nor does it disallow the proposition that the process of evolution makes it tenable to leave religion behind in our forward journey. The process my be painful, but it is a price worth paying, because the cognitive dissonance that religious belief generates (indicates?) is best jettisoned for our moral progress.

Is Northern Europe homogeneous enough to derive specific conclusions from? Until recently, the Swedes were homogeneous enough. This homogeneity allowed norms to evolve through a process of discussion and consensus - something that is difficult for heterogenous groups to achieve smoothly. In fact, the ongoing situation with migration must be making this point clearer than ever before. As for whether economic prosperity has shaped this outcome, that is an area where we see heterogeneity - I am sure that the Baltics will offer a different history and present than Sweden. For that matter, even Finland was relatively under-developed until recently. So maybe it is a more complex example than it seems at first look.

Which leaves us with your very relevant questions about framework, genetic contribution and moral relativism. I think the point you mentioned about whether our norms are evolving along with economic development can be looked at as part of the framework question. At least so it seems right now. Definitely not to be sidelined though. I stop here for now and will continue in my next post. These issues require a lot of thought and I must break my sessions for want of time and attention.




Youngman,


It is becoming almost tradition in this dialouge of ours... of me saying, thank you for a thoughtful, balance and engaging post. You do add value to PDF, you realise?

Yes, yes... morality. What is its gender?

Cybernetics can also help is forming a comprehensive opinion about different facets of our dialouge here. Dig a little bit, please.

I believe it is critically important to understand function of things to determine their value, their nature or purpose.

Once more: What is the purpose/function/need of mortality in human existential experience?

We shall park the function of Love for now. It shall come into play at later stage... Patience.

I wish to add that, perhaps, the outcomes of our Dialouge... might force a revisit to the drawingboard. As our discourse is Deconstructionist by its very nature... things do fall into pieces first before they can be recongfigured again.

Deconstruction is a painful Enterprise...especially when it involves our own being.

I have this distinct feeling that you, dear friend, will answer my Original question when our dialouge reaches its natural stop.

Looking forward to the second part of your quoted post.


You take care,


SPF


PS. I avoid threads about Cow Dialectics, Lynching, Rapping or Mob justice... for simple reason that it would be waste of my post and the Heart of all these ills is something different, deeper. In due time it shall emerge...
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom