'Why anything?'

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My problem is perhaps shared and thought of by others and it concerns identity, purpose and the overall 'progression of the species'. It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of? Those thinkers among you may perhaps have thought of an infinite inevitability which perhaps may find itself an end (God?), yet we can always think what is beyond.

So the problem that I have is that although there are meanings and points to life that we either make ourselves, that are given, or we are inspired by; I will argue that by mere switching of moods or disposition these meanings dissapear as everything may seem bleak or pointless. I honestly don't think that eradictaing peoples bad moods would help either for that maybe encroaching on the territory of population control (ideas that were perhaps intitiated by the Eugenics movement early 20th century which inspired Hitler's regime). And the concepts of 'self' are in a simmilar vein as ideas of the 'self' seemingly reinvent itself with time and could be considered no more than bundles of experiences, thoughts, memories etc.. any one time someone asks 'who are you?' So, considering these things, what then of the human identity and it's progression towards the future? What is the point if no one (I literally mean 'no one') can ever get to the bottom of the question 'Why anything?' without resorting to temporal fixes on life or actually being in contact with the 'creator' (which of course is highly dubious) when we should be answering these sorts of questions with a deep sense of bold curiousity for the future. Treat my line of questioning as a provocation to think deeper about ourselves and to arrive at ideas that can touch all bases within the confines of society (ie. spirituality, health, duty.. etc). Ultimately, will our species be better or worse off in the future?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 3,818 • Replies: 92

@Procrustes,

This thread might touch on some of your points
http://able2know.org/topic/62055-1

The concepts of general purpose or direction may merely be an inappropriate attempt at extrapolation of the human preoccupation with "prediction and control" of sub aspects of what we call "reality". Such a preoccupation has little meaning against the possibility of "time" being a psychological construct.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Quote:

It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of?

Assuming we survive to do such, anything that far into the future will either no longer be human or can only claim us as part of the history of its inventors. This kind of teleological view would leave the purpose of Neanderthals as being only contributing a few of their genes to some contemporary human populations. A purely metaphysical-free evaluation of evolution will, of course, have nothing to with such speculative possibilities.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco you raise some interesting points. If what you say about our preoccupation with humanity is indeed merely about our need to become 'masters', if you will, of our realites, it does beg the question of this need for 'control' and why. It makes me wonder of the 'hidden' agendas that are not proliferated into the the conscious stream of everyday society and frankly we cannot beat around the bush about it by merely thinking that there are no secrets and assume governments are actually transparent (search for the Bilderberg Group). Lets consider that all possibiltites are on the table and merely thinking that this is either an atheistic, theological, evolutionary, metaphysical, scientific, etc.. thread would limit ourselves in a sense. (response to the thread)

Also, I understand that time is in a perpetual 'now' moment and would even argue it will contiue to be in one without our own understanding of it in psychological terms. Science would argue that point knowing of the existence of 'Higgs fields' which is supposedly responsible for the genesis of inertial mass for all sub atomic particles in the universe (in other words the Higgs field produces a 'drag' effect in all particles therefore they don't seemingly increase acceleration) http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/higgs.html
This being said, it still does not put to rest our species involvement in todays society. We still use 'time' to plan, so in a sense, what would be the best way forward?

I do not think that any attempt is inapropriate if we are merely discussing ideas. What I think is inappropriate is is telling someone there attempts at exhibiting ideas are inapporpriate. I don't think Fresco you are inappropriate for saying so, I'm merely reflecting on your use of words.

0 Replies

@G H,

GH, your views are entirely valid. But I wonder how these kinds of thought, is, in some way, shaping our 'mental' (and perhaps physical) evoulution of contemporary society today. I agree that anything beyond this frame is speculative yet I would welcome speculation of possibilties if they were to implicitly inform us, in perhaps a simmilar way to aesthetics.

If we could somehow imagine looking forward, only to see what the possibilties could be like, we could also begin to decide which of those possibilites are not right for humanity. Yet I am deeply troubled at who is/are steering this ship. We cannot discount those with such subversive power. (All merely specualtive, but I'll never concede a possibilty from being seriously thought over, even if it may seem contrary to main stream thought)

What always brings me to question any kind of 'given' is the fact that there may be unknown possibilities for something to change our perpectives all together (which Nassim Taleb describes as Black Swans)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

0 Replies

Nietzsche surmised that the ubermench of the distant future will be to us what we are to the apes. Just an observation.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

An observation well noted JLNobody. It may well be that with time, cultural evolution, technological advancements, the growth of scientific knowledge, evolution itself, etc.. humans may not be categorised as such; yet I argue that this very ambiguity is happening right now within our society, ie. Transhumanism. Would we end up with a society like in the movie Gattaca? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
What is alluring about perfection and why?

I think we need this moral debate if we are ever to be rid of this malicious notion of 'have's and have nots'. And yet, it's an ingrained idea that we seemingly justify by allowing our own 'selfish' natures to perpetuate for our own survival, and those close to us (which I some parts agree and some parts don't; I agree we need to live but I believe there needs to be more done in the way empathy plays its part in society in general. Yet in contemporary society we value 'competition' as the way institutions conduct civc relationships as well as individuals that have to earn their livings). It makes sense to think of 'survival of the fittest' in a time where we our ancestors would have to actually hunt or forrage for food, but in todays affluent societies there is an excess that is beyond me. Why take from this world more than we need to?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Quote:

I think we need this moral debate if we are ever to be rid of this malicious notion of 'have's and have nots'.

I suggest you start with an analysis of the word "we".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thanks fresco. 'We' in the context of that statement was meant in a general sense. Not just in this forum.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

The point I was trying to make is that "we" the philosophers of the minority Western World use 20+ times the planets resources per capita with respect to "they" (the "have nots"). This is not a political point. It is material to the rationality of any discussion of "progress" which attempts to discount the "have nots" of our species.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

My problem is perhaps shared and thought of by others and it concerns identity, purpose and the overall 'progression of the species'. It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of? Those thinkers among you may perhaps have thought of an infinite inevitability which perhaps may find itself an end (God?), yet we can always think what is beyond.

So the problem that I have is that although there are meanings and points to life that we either make ourselves, that are given, or we are inspired by; I will argue that by mere switching of moods or disposition these meanings dissapear as everything may seem bleak or pointless. I honestly don't think that eradictaing peoples bad moods would help either for that maybe encroaching on the territory of population control (ideas that were perhaps intitiated by the Eugenics movement early 20th century which inspired Hitler's regime). And the concepts of 'self' are in a simmilar vein as ideas of the 'self' seemingly reinvent itself with time and could be considered no more than bundles of experiences, thoughts, memories etc.. any one time someone asks 'who are you?' So, considering these things, what then of the human identity and it's progression towards the future? What is the point if no one (I literally mean 'no one') can ever get to the bottom of the question 'Why anything?' without resorting to temporal fixes on life or actually being in contact with the 'creator' (which of course is highly dubious) when we should be answering these sorts of questions with a deep sense of bold curiousity for the future. Treat my line of questioning as a provocation to think deeper about ourselves and to arrive at ideas that can touch all bases within the confines of society (ie. spirituality, health, duty.. etc). Ultimately, will our species be better or worse off in the future?

I remember an old friend telling me to never bring up multiple questions for a sinlgle opening thread. I would encourage the same for you. So let's take your last question as the starting point and work from there. Let us ask the question: will our species be better or worse off in the future?

Depends on what we understand 'better' to be. Does it have moral, technological, or biological connotations? Or perhaps something else? Better still, what would an answer to this question solve? Is it really pertinent to us on given grounds, moral or otherwise? That is, in light of addressing the question, would it provide clues as to what one 'ought' to do?

2 Replies

@bait bludgeon,

...when our species is no longer our species it will get better...what else is new ?
....it amazes me that people actually believe the opposite...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...when our species is no longer our species it will get better...what else is new ?
....it amazes me that people actually believe the opposite...

But better in what sense? What do you mean by 'better'?

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

...more adapted to change and more energy efficient to produce work...I don´t use universal moral value as referent...but I see your point...

1 Reply

@bait bludgeon,

Thank you bait bludgeon for letting me know not to use so many questions in an opening thread. I didn't quite know the 'etiquette' in such forums.

In terms of this idea of 'better-ness', it does at first glance seemingly lend its hand to an ethical frame but I guess what I was trying to imply (something that I was not explicit about and perhaps should of been) is that with a world so 'switched on' (I'm talking to those with the technological opportunities to do so) is it that impossible to start talking and thinking about the future? I'm just one guy who'll keep asking questions (perhaps cos I'm just as curious as anyone else) and to see what people really think but I guess this is why there are forums like this, no? I don't think that this is an authoritative discussion on anything, nor is it a politically charged one. It would be nice to hear what people think we 'ought' to do, and just maybe we can discuss the ideas within the context and confines of this forum (and perhaps for people to discuss this stuff elsewhere; but who really knows or even better still, who would even care?). Hopefully (albiet restrained hope), if an attempt is made at answering such seemingly 'unanswerable' questions, it might just give us food for thought, if nothing else.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco, you raise an intersting point. I wonder what 'progress' is exactly; and is your implication that this 'progress' is being manipulated somehow?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, I do agree with you that living standards do get better with time but I wonder at what cost? I don't think that universal moral value exists (unless we actually have moral values that are simmilar to other alien civillisations otherwise 'universal' doesn't mean a hell of a lot) but I do wonder of the ethical implications in which we move forward.

0 Replies

Procrustes, you say that we must get rid of the malicious notion of 'haves' and 'have-nots. Don't you mean that we must get rid of--or at least reduce--the reality of that division?
By progress we can mean many things, e.g., moving from simple to complex, less adaptable to more adaptable (this is better than more fit because fitness may be limited to a particular environment that could change). Progress may be defined in terms of current standards/values like less beautiful, enlightened or intelligent to more beautiful, enlightened or intelligent, and so on. But as we "progress" our criteria/standards/values may change. That would complicate the notion of progress considerably.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody, I think your wording is better than mine in terms of this division of 'haves' and 'have-nots'. I like the idea of at least attempting a reduction of the 'reality' of that division. I'm not even sure if 'haves' and 'have nots' is proper to use.

If indeed progress can mean a variety of things, could there be progress that is 'inclusive' of all meanings? But is that like asking 'THE' meaning of meanings when we talk about life? Is progress an illusion in which the sum of its parts seemingly appears to create the idea of a 'generalised progress'? Julian Baggini speaks of the 'self' in this kind of way. He makes you consider a water molecule and shows you its constituents; 2 hydrogen, 1 oxygen. He then zooms out to make you see the molecule as a whole making you realise that what we understand as water is nothing but these broken down molecules. Drawing that analogy, 'progress' could perhaps be seen like this in which all forms of progress (whatever these forms may be) seemingly create the illusion of something bigger. Yet, I maintain that the 'illusion' exists and like the ideas of 'self', it does change with time, like you say JLNobody. But how will it change us? (Assuming that people will be changed by it; who knows? Some people might not like change)

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

In reality the notion of haves and have nots, can be reduced to a greater ability to compete.
Human beings have out-competed every other species on the planet, possibly excepting the Ant. Through our own success at competition, and adaptability, we have multiplied to the point where competition among ourselves is become the primary competition.
The future evolution of the human race will come as a result of this competition. That is, unless we can invent a machine which will manufacture resources for us, including more space.
I'm wagering we just can't get around Mother Nature.

1 Reply

'Why anything?'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know