Saw...

a pigeon eating a off of a chicken bone. Made me feel a little sick.

weren't you the one going off about us eating animals. welcome to our planet. nom nom nom.

"The world is X way, therefore the world should be X way."

Interesting philosophy.

he was just kidding, we all know what the naturalistic fallacy is.

I wasn't aware we could change the nature of animals? lol

We also know the moralistic fallacy.

the last several thousand years (particularly the last couple hundred) have shown that we can change the nature of just about anything besides physics. domestication of animals, microbiology, globe-changing technology, etc etc. i don't have strong feelings about not eating animals, but the food industry is extremely fucked up.

However, therein lies a problem. Is it right that we change of nature of, well, nature? What ends are we progressing towards?

that is SUCH an interesting question. i have no clue.

i think its inevitable that we change the nature of nature, that has been the essence of being human since we became human (2001: space odyssey)--tools and communication, they are "unnatural". ever since we could make up stories we have been inventing the origins of humanity and nature. it wasn't until the last couple centuries the we became scientifically (and romantically) concerned with what is actually natural. its way too late to return to any kind of natural state. imo creating an image of how the future should be is the never-ending game of philosophers, writers, artists, and influential people of all sorts--i think this is what is so appealing about sci-fi. people grope around and cling to what sticks and that influences everyone's values. but no one really even sees the whole picture, our values are shadowy and contradictory and you could spend your whole life trying to figure out exactly what they are and where they came from. and history just kinda goes along according to happenstance and huge, random, world-changing events.

In my opinion, along with a developing understanding of our own nature should come increased sense of empathy.

How would you feel if you were treated like X. That in mind, do you believe other beings should be subjected to that?

It can be argued that it's in our "nature" to kill each other. There is a reason we have laws about that.

It's very easy to deconstruct the world and everything in it... and determine that it's meaningless.

In fact, it makes more logical sense that NOTHING should exist. However, the undeniable fact is that things DO exist, and we therefore must act accordingly.

You are in a world that suits your needs in some ways and in others does not. Do you not feel some desire to make this world a better place for other beings like yourself?

If more people thought that way in the past, this place would already be a better place for you and I to live. And in many ways, it is.

Newmantopia wrote:It's very easy to deconstruct the world and everything in it... and determine that it's meaningless.

In fact, it makes more logical sense that NOTHING should exist. However, the undeniable fact is that things DO exist, and we therefore must act accordingly.

this better not be directed at me

And if you are to start generalizing again, making a statement like "what is better?"

Well, we can determine that being a Jew in the time and place of the Holocaust, or a slave at any given point in history are definite examples of a lower quality life. If you can acknowledge that, you would likely agree that there are lesser and better states of existence for sentient beings.

Karl wrote:

Newmantopia wrote:It's very easy to deconstruct the world and everything in it... and determine that it's meaningless.

In fact, it makes more logical sense that NOTHING should exist. However, the undeniable fact is that things DO exist, and we therefore must act accordingly.

this better not be directed at me

It's not.

The Rebirth wrote:We also know the moralistic fallacy.

!! glad you pointed this out - we would have had, and would still have, a better left if everyone owned up to this.

like Singer in A Darwinian Left

Karl wrote: people grope around and cling to what sticks and that influences everyone's values. but no one really even sees the whole picture, our values are shadowy and contradictory and you could spend your whole life trying to figure out exactly what they are and where they came from. and history just kinda goes along according to happenstance and huge, random, world-changing events.

Now that you mention it-

Statements like this kind of bug me out. I feel that it devalues decision and action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not suggest that there is no/little point in truly trying to figure anything out, given everything is simply happenstance?

Obviously you disagree wit this notion, or you wouldn't be as thoughtful as you are.

In a way it may be enlightening to realize that ultimately we will die and regardless of what happens in our atmospheric bubble, the outside is unaffected. But there is also an extravagant infinity within universe of a conscious mind.

Newmantopia wrote:

Karl wrote: people grope around and cling to what sticks and that influences everyone's values. but no one really even sees the whole picture, our values are shadowy and contradictory and you could spend your whole life trying to figure out exactly what they are and where they came from. and history just kinda goes along according to happenstance and huge, random, world-changing events.

Now that you mention it-

Statements like this kind of bug me out. I feel that it devalues decision and action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not suggest that there is no/little point in truly trying to figure anything out, given everything is simply happenstance?

Obviously you disagree wit this notion, or you wouldn't be as thoughtful as you are.

In a way it may be enlightening to realize that ultimately we will die and regardless of what happens in our atmospheric bubble, the outside is unaffected. But there is also an extravagant infinity within universe of a conscious mind.

imo human history is a combination of the influence of culture which sort of creates a series of possibilities (kind of like collective dreams of the future) and the influence of the random course of political, social, and environmental events which push us down a certain path. obviously i don't believe that the future is completely random, but i think that the idea of a teleological trajectory of human history is a security blanket that prevents people from acknowledging what actually influences history much of the time. i'm not trying to be fatalist, i'm just interested in the actual reality of how history happens.

It's difficult to make objective observations about nature when it is not possible to fully separate oneself from it.

It would be like a water droplet trying to make claims about the river to which it belongs.

Newmantopia wrote:Statements like this kind of bug me out. I feel that it devalues decision and action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not suggest that there is no/little point in truly trying to figure anything out, given everything is simply happenstance?

it doesn't! its not that big a hit to reason at all.

KCLU wrote:

Newmantopia wrote:Statements like this kind of bug me out. I feel that it devalues decision and action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not suggest that there is no/little point in truly trying to figure anything out, given everything is simply happenstance?

it doesn't! its not that big a hit to reason at all.

True, not an effective one, anyway.

lol, wasn't trying to denounce reason. all i was doing was looking at how people shape nature and history.

The funny thing is, we do all live in a world which suits our needs, the needs of humanity, and our progression thus far has focused on meeting the needs of ourselves. Would it be so wrong to say inherently human beings are selfish, as all of our achievements have been based around bettering life for ourselves. The domestication of animals, the manipulation of microbes, delving into the unknown of space; all of this has been done to somehow enhance our life upon this Earth. It may seem small-minded and I don't wish to make such a broad statement while leaving out the beliefs of idealists but it is my belief that everyone is inherently...selfish. Every creature on the planet is interested in its own survival first while the future of the world takes a backseat.

If we transition through time, yes, being a Jew during the Holocaust was unfortunate, but it wasn't so unfortunate to be any other denomination during the Holocaust. Whereas, being a Jew residing in Israel is currently beneficial, whilst being a Palestinian residing in Israel is very unfortunate.

I understand things exist and for them to coexist there must be an understanding amongst organism. However, we were placed on the top of the ladder intellectually and have manipulated the world as we see fit. Of course I only wish for the betterment of our world, but who's to say what makes the world a better place? Who is the decider ultimately? Would you say its the human race? If people thought the domestication of animals would help feed people in areas where farming seems impossible, does this make it wrong? If people break moral boundaries to better the life of others, is this not also inherently wrong? You ask if I don't feel a desire to make this world a better place for other beings like yourself? Of course, are pigeons or chickens beings such as myself? I'd like to think not. The problem with your argument is all about perspective. Hitler might have thought the world would be a better place if Jews, Gypsys and the Handicapped didn't exist, I mean it certainly would have made the world a better place for certain individuals as they truly believed in this, just as Muslims believe the world would be a better place if certain religions ceased to exist. I can't change the inherent nature of beings without breaking moral lines and in doing so, are we changing things for the better just because certain people believe we are?

The world is not meaningless it is simply too full of meaning. There are so many interpretations of what is right and wrong, good and bad that it is almost impossible to determine what is collectively good and collectively bad. In the end, it is all about how YOU want to spend your time on Earth and no one should have to force someone into make a contribution when a sentient being has no desire to contribute.

The Rebirth wrote:The world is not meaningless it is simply too full of meaning. There are so many interpretations of what is right and wrong, good and bad that it is almost impossible to determine what is collectively good and collectively bad.

i completely agree with this. thats why i was talking about how people envision the future. i think that's what is important about the cultural influence of personalities, books, movies, art, etc, they all suggest visions of the future, however subtle. i think most people's idea of how things should be basically comes down to aesthetic taste, and culture is a huge melting pot of competing visions of an aesthetic for the future of society.

so basically i'm not arguing for or against animal rights, i'm arguing for a certain way of framing the problem--thinking of it in terms of the trajectory of modern culture.

The Rebirth wrote:The funny thing is, we do all live in a world which suits our needs, the needs of humanity, and our progression thus far has focused on meeting the needs of ourselves. Would it be so wrong to say inherently human beings are selfish, as all of our achievements have been based around bettering life for ourselves. The domestication of animals, the manipulation of microbes, delving into the unknown of space; all of this has been done to somehow enhance our life upon this Earth. It may seem small-minded and I don't wish to make such a broad statement while leaving out the beliefs of idealists but it is my belief that everyone is inherently...selfish. Every creature on the planet is interested in its own survival first while the future of the world takes a backseat.

If we transition through time, yes, being a Jew during the Holocaust was unfortunate, but it wasn't so unfortunate to be any other denomination during the Holocaust. Whereas, being a Jew residing in Israel is currently beneficial, whilst being a Palestinian residing in Israel is very unfortunate.

I understand things exist and for them to coexist there must be an understanding amongst organism. However, we were placed on the top of the ladder intellectually and have manipulated the world as we see fit. Of course I only wish for the betterment of our world, but who's to say what makes the world a better place? Who is the decider ultimately? Would you say its the human race? If people thought the domestication of animals would help feed people in areas where farming seems impossible, does this make it wrong? If people break moral boundaries to better the life of others, is this not also inherently wrong? You ask if I don't feel a desire to make this world a better place for other beings like yourself? Of course, are pigeons or chickens beings such as myself? I'd like to think not. The problem with your argument is all about perspective. Hitler might have thought the world would be a better place if Jews, Gypsys and the Handicapped didn't exist, I mean it certainly would have made the world a better place for certain individuals as they truly believed in this, just as Muslims believe the world would be a better place if certain religions ceased to exist. I can't change the inherent nature of beings without breaking moral lines and in doing so, are we changing things for the better just because certain people believe we are?

The world is not meaningless it is simply too full of meaning. There are so many interpretations of what is right and wrong, good and bad that it is almost impossible to determine what is collectively good and collectively bad. In the end, it is all about how YOU want to spend your time on Earth and no one should have to force someone into make a contribution when a sentient being has no desire to contribute.

"And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind."

"Too full of meaning", "meaningless"... what's the difference if it results in a passive attitude toward alteration.

Sure, pigeons are nothing like yourself, until the universe decides you are to be one.

I mean, somebody had to stand up to say slavery is wrong. I bet most people just thought "that's just the way it is".

Just as most people say bulldozing over Palestinian homes and salting the land is wrong, but it still continues TO THIS DAY. The Zionists living there certainly don't believe what they're doing is wrong, just as the United States doesn't see it as being wrong, but myself and other do think it is wrong.

Like I said though, who is to say slavery is wrong, it's all perspective. I certainly think slavery is wrong but it's because of my own guiding morals and principles, but there are people out there that do not share my own morals and values thereby making it wrong of me to infringe upon them my personal beliefs.

Maybe being passive about the alteration of the world is the thing that will ultimately change the world while actively trying to alter the world will be the thing which ultimately changes it, which doesn't necessarily mean its going to change for better or worse because still, its all perspective.

When the universe decides I am to be a pigeon, as I am not a pigeon at this time, I will be even more passive in my attitude towards the universe.