Were we better off in a state of nature?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Were we better off in a state of nature?

How credible was the concept of the Noble Savage?

The thing is that society is constantly changing. How can we create a stable society within such a dynamic world culture? We need an ideal as a North Star. An ideal does not depend upon what is or what was but upon what we want or what we need?-hopefully that are similar.

I think that Socrates may very well be the first person to recognize what we need. Socrates recognized that the basic need was for wo/men to awaken their critical faculties. Socrates was perhaps the first to recognize that humans are too easily delighted by the praise of their fellows and that this sought after social recognition prevented their free and enlighten action. Humans need to share in a shared social fiction. The anxiety of self-discovery is a constant source of internal conflict for humans.

It appears that human play forms "may even outwit human adaptation itself". The created fiction becomes more real than reality itself. New humans enter this world and immediately begin the process of survival which becomes "a struggle with the ideas one has inherited". This fiction reality destroys our rational adaptive process which can react to the real world; we are too busy reacting to our fictional play.

Is it appropriate to say that the Amish might be considered to be the modern Noble Savage?

Is it possible that we could study the Amish as a means for creating a better society?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 718 • Replies: 11

No top replies

Quote:

The created fiction becomes more real than reality itself

We assign meaning to reality. "Meaning" is a fiction - it is not reality, but an interpretation of it and it's consequences. "Meaning" to us humans, is very important. There's nothing wrong with this. Reality without emotions and meaning would be terribly bland.

I would guess the article is trying to say that we take the ?'meaning of events to ourselves' way to seriously, and when someone attacks that meaning, or has another conflicting meaning, we get upsetand asks if this is always necessary, or rather, rarely necessary.

Quote:

Socrates was perhaps the first to recognize that humans are too easily delighted by the praise of their fellows and that this sought after social recognition prevented their free and enlighten action.

I don't agree with people who think this way. Granted, on the surface it seems sound, and would reduce manipulation, but the price such things appear to ask is that we disconnect ourselves from others for the duration of the praise. I personally don't think that is possible, nor the best way to do things. To me, connection while retaining your mental faculties seems to best way to go.

0 Replies

Bill Moyer has a video wherein he discusses the book "Amish Grace" that you might find to be very interesting regarding the Amish response to their tragedy. Compare that Amish response to their tragedy and the response of America to our 9/11 tragedy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch4.html

0 Replies

cob wrote:

Were we better off in a state of nature?

When did we cease to be in a state of nature? It is a testament to the arrogance of human self loving that we see ourselves as above nature. As if evolution loosened it's grip on us when we attained the ability to percieve ourselves.

But it didn't.

And it might be possible that the amish have a more healthy way of life, if you disregard the fact that they don't use medical aids or technology. If you ask me, that's just silly. Technology, computers, even AI when it comes, are all natural things. Results of a development that began in the murky waters of primal earth.

But we do not only use technology today. We are obsessed with it. The way I see it, the best way to go about making a better society would be to look at what we need instead of what we want.

0 Replies

All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature. All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct. Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior. Ideology is a human construct. Nationalism is an ideology. It is a fiction.

We slowly left the state of nature as we became more ego controlled and less instinct controlled.

0 Replies

Hmm... I guess you're using "nature" in a very limited way here. It reveals that you see humans as being above nature. But it is a misconception that evolution lost it's grip on us when we became self aware. This misconception is very common, since we are brought up with the tale of how god created nature and then put humans in it.

And the only difference between humans and most other animals is that we are self aware. But there are other species on this planet that share this attribute. Some primates and dolphins have a sense of self. That becomes evident when you put a mirror in front of them and you see that they know that the figure they see is a reflection of themselves. Studies have been conducted on this, so we know it for sure.

I agree that nationalism is a fiction, a human construct. But that doesn't make it unnatural. Man is an extension of the forces of nature that put him forth, and thus man is a manifestation of nature's forces, allowing nature to percieve itself, thereby speeding up evolution. It follows that it is not in man's power to do something unnatural.

0 Replies

it's been said before
i think on any given day (so far,) you can find compelling arguments for either approach to life, whether "natural" or "civilized."

and the amish approach is rather in the middle. there is nothing very natural about clearing giant lands (full of foods for every native creature) to plant food that only people will eat.

i think that humanity, if it becomes sane, will learn more and more from people with a wholly "natural" approach, and for the survival of mankind, we will implement as much of this as possible.

of course, without science and exploration of new frontiers, the "natural" approach may do just fine by itself until the day the sun explodes. by then, if we're around, i hope we'll have made the effort to move off this rock.

the "explore but exploit everything" approach will starve or obliterate us long before then, if we don't find some balance between the two.

0 Replies

First of all, tiny, I'd like to voice my agreement on the opinion voiced in your last sentence.

But could we please move away from putting "natural" up against "civilized"? The two are not counterparts. Civilisation is but a fraction of nature. It is NOT something outside of it.

0 Replies

the liberal use of quotes was intentional.

rather than constantly elaborate on themes that (you and i agree on, and) should be more obvious, i used the poor terminology that is common (if inaccurate) to such discussions- but at least familiar.

civilization is not outside nature, and man is part of nature, true and true. worse, civilization is seen as progress, when it's really progress-no-matter-the-cost, which isn't progress at all and belongs in quotes as well.

but i think the word "unnatural" is still a useful word, although maybe we'll come up with a better and more accurate one. it's useful to describe something that wasn't part of any part of nature, or any part of anything, until very recently when man went a bit... incompatible with everything else. our march towards extinction might be very natural, but "natural" is the wrong word for us to describe it with. it sends the wrong message.

i look forward to having better words to use, ones that describe our situations better. in the meantime, i'm just trying to make a point, and i'm willing to use the wrong words to do so (on occasion) if it gets the message across. and i don't mind your protest- i'm glad people mention it. i think the key here is that we're part of nature, but we're out of harmony with ourselves- thus, out of harmony with nature. that's the meaning of "unnatural," even if- technically- there is no such thing.

0 Replies

Ok... how about if we define "unnatural" as meaning "something unseen in nature before man brought it forth".

or

something that come of the natural force known as man?

but the problem is that the wrong words create wrong ways to percieve things, and soon enough we take the flawed perspective as a true perspective. That is one way to ensure the continued "explore but exploit everything" mentality.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

but the problem is that the wrong words create wrong ways to percieve things, and soon enough we take the flawed perspective as a true perspective. That is one way to ensure the continued "explore but exploit everything" mentality.

i agree, and that is why we really need new words. i think they'll come to us in time, they always have the moment we were ready to use them.

0 Replies

I think you're right. it is a shame that things often need to get pretty bad before we notice the destructive trail we're on, but it seems to be the way of life in some cases..

0 Replies

Were we better off in a state of nature?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know