When will modern mankind progress?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Kind of a silly question, when what constitutes progress has not been established.

We seldom agree,
but this time, I must admit that u r right.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Kind of a silly question, when what constitutes progress has not been established.

It was in the OP, or as I took it to be as follows:

HexHammer wrote:

My hope is, that some day mankind as a whole, would get enlighten thus we won't repeat the same mistakes, that we don't wage wars, we don't hurt eachothers, no need for police, jails and lawyers ..etc, all these unessesary costly things which we as enlighten being should be without.

Though progress could be defined many ways, this seemed to narrow the scope to this view.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Kind of a silly question, when what constitutes progress has not been established.

It was in the OP, or as I took it to be as follows:

HexHammer wrote:
My hope is, that some day mankind as a whole, would get enlighten thus we won't repeat the same mistakes, that we don't wage wars, we don't hurt eachothers, no need for police, jails and lawyers ..etc, all these unessesary costly things which we as enlighten being should be without.

Though progress could be defined many ways, this seemed to narrow the scope to this view.

In other words, it is progress toward ENLIGHTENMENT and ANARCHY.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In other words, it is progress toward ENLIGHTENMENT and ANARCHY.

Anarchy is selfrule and overthrow of present law, morals and ethis, the enlighten being does not want to overthrow these idealistic rules, but will not need anyone to enforce them ..quite big difference my friend.

0 Replies

I'd like some clarification on how the word "enlightenment" is being used here. Buddhists, for instance, use the word in a spiritual manner. Some people use to mean a certain level of great intellectual achievement (whatever that may mean). Others use it simply to mean something akin to "very wise". How is it used here?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'd like some clarification on how the word "enlightenment" is being used here. Buddhists, for instance, use the word in a spiritual manner. Some people use to mean a certain level of great intellectual achievement (whatever that may mean). Others use it simply to mean something akin to "very wise". How is it used here?

It's not so much enlightmen as in religious and spiritual understanding, but founded on modern scientific principles. It's understanding of psycology, medical science, physics, ecology, geology ..etc. Maybe the better pharse would be "understanding of science", but whatever you call it, it's still the underlying principles which I have clarifyed before.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Kind of a silly question, when what constitutes progress has not been established.

It's to my belive that it is clearly stated what constitues progress.

1 Reply

On progress as in everything else, it all depends on the goal, the goal is the reference...if my goal is to make a plane and I am developing a car then I am certainly regressing towards my objective...As a species and even as culture there are, thankfully, many options of progress and not so much consense...(which obviously does n´t mean that we can´t or should n´t agree at any level...) Necessarily, diversity should be preserved precisely to prevent the dictate of mediocrity synchronous ensemble ! The visionary´s of great many things will be our ruin !

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Belief, the word you wanted was belief . . . and no, it's not clearly stated. It is assumed, and an assumption is not the same as a statement of fact. Rhetorical discussions are meaningless unless and until all terms are satisfactorily defined.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Belief, the word you wanted was belief . . . and no, it's not clearly stated. It is assumed, and an assumption is not the same as a statement of fact. Rhetorical discussions are meaningless unless and until all terms are satisfactorily defined.

If I state 5+5 is the answer, you look to the absolute end which is 10, maybe it's because I see things too clearly and forgets that others does not.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

You delude yourself. I'll go get your initial post, and we can examine that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You delude yourself. I'll go get your initial post, and we can examine that.

No, really think I got it straight.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

For some time I'v been philosophising, yet I see very little progress in the methods which we uses, it's still marked with superstition, compulsive behaviour, stupidity. Only a very minor precentage of us actually progress a tiny bit, but the fools then only have new toys to play with, they don't really get much wiser.

My hope is, that some day mankind as a whole, would get enlighten thus we won't repeat the same mistakes, that we don't wage wars, we don't hurt eachothers, no need for police, jails and lawyers ..etc, all these unessesary costly things which we as enlighten being should be without.

Is it in the genetics to create super savants humans? ..is it there we must begin?

You state you have been "philosophizing." You then state that that process, without identifying it as a universally recognized, discrete process, has been characterized by "superstition, compulsive behavior, stupidity," referring to "the method." You don't, apparently, wish to discuss if that is the case, we are just supposed to accept that on your assertion that this is the case. In essence, you beg the question of what "philosophizing" might be, and so, what progress in such a process might constitute, is not addressed at all, because the process (what you call method) is not defined, nor do you identify a goal toward which to progress, and how such progress might be realized.

You also suggest, again without any basis for the statement, that "philosophizing" can rid us of war and crime. Butchering the word "enlightened," you inferentially claim that wars and crime exist because "we" are not enlightened.

Your entire exercise is predicated on unsubstantiated claims on your part. We can hardly address the subject of progress by mankind when no definition of philosophizing is provided, when there is no reference to specific methods which characterize this "philosophizing," and therefore there is no way to know what would constitute progress by mankind in methods of "philosophizing." Unless and until you define your terms, and are prepared to substantiate your claims, to defend your assertions, his is just so much pointless and largely meaningless chin music.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Oh, i'm sure you think so. That, however, does not make it so. You need a much better command of the language, for example, to sustain claims such as you are attempting to make.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

You see, too high lvls of oestrogene distorts women's preception, even with very simple things, I think it would be good for you to have it checked.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

That's pretty pathetic. That is classic argumentum ad hominem--denigrating the person rather than addressing the argument presented. Just for the record, i'm not a woman.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I can't argue with a person in a state of psycosis who gets blinded by insignificant things, get a grip please.

0 Replies

I've got a grip. I've not been blinded by anything here, including your hocus-pocus bullshit. You have not established that such a thing as "philosophizing" exists. I don't deny that it does, i'm simply pointing out that you are using vague and undefined terms. You haven't addressed the subject of what standard methods of "philosophizing" might be. If you assert that, for example, everyone from Plato to Wittgenstein who have been recognized as philosophers of merit, used methods which can be characterized by superstition and stupidity, you will have made a claim which cannot be taken seriously without some very serious substantiated. But you just make claims, you indulge in no substantiation of your claims at all.

Finally, you inferentially claim that war and crime arise because people are not enlightened. In the confused flurry of misspelled words in disjointed sentences which you have presented, there is no definition of enlightened, no standard by which to judge who is or isn't enlightened. Absent such a definition of enlightened, absent a standard by which to judge, it is equally absurd to expect there to be any plausible definition of what constitutes progress.

In short, you're all over the road, Bubba, and i strongly suspect that you're driving without a license.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Oh yes, we actually have an anology for ones such as you here in Denmark, it's the "burning building anology", but it mostly used for politicians, however it fits perfectly fitting you.

It's about how politicians are so horrible inefficient because they stumple upon insignificant things as an oppotunity to throw mud at eachothers, then they like robots will follow an inefficient procedure, of ebstablishing who put the house on fire and why! Then they'll sit and discuss a proper procedure of how to orchestrate the whole thing, if it will offend anybody, if those put in charge has a proper background ..etc..etc

.......aaaaaallll while the damn building are burning to the ground!!!

Then afterwards they will thorw even more mud, accuseing, blaming eachother and tries to place the guilt.

I'v worked on a big newspaper, and realized very soon that procedures something one has to question and put the foot down if they'r useless. I'v gotten the worst job in there, writing the internal newsletter, but I managed to cut it from taking 8-22h to consistenly 2-3h, just by realizing that we'r a 100% based electronic company, and doesn't need print to be printed in order to write it off, it would be double work, as they already wrote it electronicly ..but they ..as you were too consumed by procedures.

What method is extreme irrelevant, what if I have read some article? Then the method would be irrelevant, so what does it matter? However I'm clever enough to think for myself.

I have made further clarification in later posts, if you had care to read it.

It would be good for you and the rest of us, if you wasn't so overly emotional which leads to hysteria. Plase relax.

1 Reply

Setanta wrote:

You have not established that such a thing as "philosophizing" exists.

Philosophizing is an activity, like sewing or painting. A common definition of philosophy is "talk about talk", and so many would be comfortable saying that philosophizing is "talking about talk". The word "philosophizing" is also commonly used to mean "critical thinking", which is associated with informal logic. It can also simply mean "thinking about, solving, or putting effort into, philosophical problems".

How exactly would you like him to establish that such an activity exists? Can you be more specific as to what you are looking for? Would you like us to present to you a formal argument with the conclusion that philosophizing is an activity? Would you simply like a demonstration?

0 Replies

When will modern mankind progress?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know