Size

[Anja]

'scuse, Victor.

 

[Sniffles]

For 200,000 years our horizon was limited by our size.

But over the last 100 years or so our horizon has extended to include the unimaginably small and the unimaginably large.

Our horizon has extended from the heart of the atom to the shape of the universe.

And we found the atom is not what we thought it was, and nor is the universe.

In fact the atom and the universe are quite counter-intuitive.

While the things we can relate to our physical size remain intuitive.

And so we now have a bifurcation in human culture - those who are intuitive and those who are counter-intuitive.

And those who are counter-intuitive are invariably literate and numerate.

And it is only the literate and numerate that can understand the modern world of science, economics and politics.

And it is the intuitive that are left in the world of astrology, religion, the New Age, pseudo-science and tribalism.

C.P. Snow spoke of these two cultures in, "The Two Cultures", in 1959.

And I hardly need to point out that the illiterate, innumerate, tribal world of Islam is at war with the literate, numerate, democratic West.

And the war is about size.

The intuitive only have to look about them to see they are right. While the counter-intuitive only have to look through a microscope or a telescope to see they are right.

Unfortunately for the intuitive, the cat is out of the bag.

In fact two cats - one very small and one very large.

And the counter-intuitive cats are among the intuitive pigeons.

Perhaps you should read my signature Victor:

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount...The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
--General Omar Bradley

Nietzsche made a similar remark about that while our "descriptions" of the world have become more elaborated, our actual explainations have not progressed one iota since the days of Plato.

 

[Sniffles]

You might say the war for illiteracy and innumeracy is led by Jean-Jacques Rousseau from the Eighteen Century.

Rousseau was not against literacy, even with his "Noble Savage" concept. He noted that literacy was a major element to good citizenship, and noted the importance of certain books in his book on education Emile.

And it still prevents us from applying the only known antidote to tribalism.

That's assuming "tribalism" is bad, and Rousseau makes an interesting argument in favor of it in Discourse on the Political Economy:

"It appears that the feeling of humanity evaporates and grows feeble in embracing all mankind, and that we cannot be affected by the calamities of Tartary or Japan, in the same manner as we are by those of European nations. It is necessary in some degree to confine and limit our interest and compassion in order to make it active. Now, as this sentiment can be useful only to those with whom we have to live, it is proper that our humanity should confine itself to our fellow-citizens, and should receive a new force because we are in the habit of seeing them, and by reason of the common interest which unites them. It is certain that the greatest miracles of virtue have been produced by patriotism: this fine and lively feeling, which gives to the force of self-love all the beauty of virtue, lends it an energy which, without disfiguring it, makes it the most heroic of all passions."

Rousseau also made the point that a cosmopolitan will declare his love for humanity because he can't stand the people immediately around him.

This basic argument was also given by Edmund Burke, a man who had no real sympathy towards Rousseau's philopsophy.

Love for humanity begins with those closest to you, not those farthest away.

And the antidote to tribalism is literacy and numeracy.

Then explain the emergence of nationalism during the age of universal education.

 

[Nocapszy]

As I read the OP I thought about the "original," nature -oriented state of man and also that in many ways science has alienated us from that.

Alienation isn't always incorrect.

I don't recall a time in my life when my spirituality wasn't connected to the world about me and the vaster Universe which I conceptualize. Also the microcosms.

How wonderful. What's stuff is the spirit made of?

But I don't think that science and nature have to be opposing inclinations.

Listen cat, science is the study of nature. There are bad scientists.
And any scientist who tells you that nature and science stand in opposition or rivalry is a bad scientist. Mock them on behalf of me please.

Good science attempts to explain confusing phenomena. Phenomena that was previously thought to be impossible. Every single time so far, logic has pulled it together.
If, in nature, you see a frog what kills an elephant, you'll soon find that scientists will try to find out just how it happened. It seemed impossible. It seemed mysterious. But it wasn't really. We were just blind to what we have no experience with. A bad scientist will tell you that nature made a mistake. It didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

A good scientist will take samples and do an autopsy of the elephant.

That kind of black and white thinking IS alienating, from my perspective.

Alienation isn't always incorrect. Additionally, correctitude knows no perspective. Yours, mine, President Bush's Victors? Reality doesn't care. What we think. He'll just keep doing his job. Even after we stop trying to psychoanalyze him.

It seems to me that everything "fits" together in mysterious ways.

As long as you submit to the notion that everything fits together, you'll do fine.
And to a good scientist, deciphering the mystery is better than any video game.

I've frequently read that as scientists get closer to understanding the mechanics of the Universe many of them are clarifying a undeveloped sense of spirituality.

Where?

 

[Mole]

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount...The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
--General Omar Bradley

For the first time in human history, institutional slavery was abolished by the House of Commons in 1833.

And in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the nations of the world.

And in the twentieth century in the West, women gained their emancipation.

And in the last decades, the laws against child sexual abuse have been enforced in the West.

So just recently the slaves have been freed, human rights have been acknowledged, women have been freed, and most important, children have been saved.

And dare I say it, but the Sermon on the Mount achieved none of these over the past two thousand years.

No wonder we find sermons a little tiresome.

 

[Nocapszy]

We don't have to be prolifically more ethical than yesterday to be ethical giants.
Maybe ethics is simpler than science.
Maybe we've figured out all the ethics that are possible. Leaving only science to be figured.

It's appropriate that a child would leave his old toybox and play with his new trucks.

 

[Mole]

Then explain the emergence of nationalism during the age of universal education.

My country has a tradition of nationalism and it also has remnants of tribalism.

My nation state has never known institutional slavery.

It wrote and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined them in law.

It teaches and practises the equality of women and men - indeed, our Commander-in-Chief is a women.

And we vigourously defend the rights of children and vigourously prosecute any Australian who abuses children here or overseas.

While the tribalists bash and kill women and sexually abuse their children. You can read all about it in, "Little Children are Sacred Report".

And as I write, my nation state is spending billions of dollars to try to bring the tribalists into the modern world. However we are hampered by those Rousseauians who romanticise the tribal life.

And you old silly, nationalism is the result of universal literacy. And no more than in your fine country where nationalism was borne on the backs of newspapers and news print.

 

[Sniffles]

For the first time in human history, institutional slavery was abolished by the House of Commons in 1833.

I've already refuted this before Victor in the thread you shamelessly drifted concerning Augustinian spirituality. Slavery was abolished in the Medieval period.

And in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the nations of the world.

Yeah and one of the nations that not only signed it, but was represented in the commission to write it was the USSR, ruled at that time by none other than Joseph Stalin.

And in the twentieth century in the West, women gained their emancipation.

And as a result the relations between the genders are at its lowest point. Women are more easily disrespected than ever before. Go feminism!

So just recently the slaves have been freed, human rights have been acknowledged, women have been freed, and most important, children have been saved.

And dare I say it, but the Sermon on the Mount achieved none of these over the past two thousand years.

Well so much for your claim of being a Judeo-Greek-Christian. You've shown your true colors.

Not to mention you have exposed your utter ignorance of the history here. The Sermon on the Mount had much to do with reshaping the morality that governed the Western world and still effects us to this day. There's much information out there about this, it's literally astonding anybody would deny it.

Perhaps it should be noted that many of the basic Liberal attitudes you mentioned above have their sources in the morality forged by the Sermon on the Mount. Carl Schmitt most famously first exposed this in Political Theology, concerning how Liberalism is largely based upon secularised theological concepts.

No wonder we find sermons a little tiresome.

It's not sermons, but your asinine blatherings that are tiresome.

 

[Mole]

We don't have to be prolifically more ethical than yesterday to be ethical giants.
Maybe ethics is simpler than science.
Maybe we've figured out all the ethics that are possible. Leaving only science to be figured.

It's appropriate that a child would leave his old toybox and play with his new trucks.

We have over the last one hundred and eighty years made giant ethical strides that have not been matched in the two hundred thousand years of human history.

This is so extraordinary that it demands an explanation.

 

[Sniffles]

My country has a tradition of nationalism and it also has remnants of tribalism.

My nation state has never known institutional slavery.

It wrote and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined them in law.

It teaches and practises the equality of women and men - indeed, our Commander-in-Chief is a women.

And we vigourously defend the rights of children and vigourously prosecute any Australian who abuses children here or overseas.

While the tribalists bash and kill women and sexually abuse their children. You can read all about it in, "Little Children are Sacred Report".

And as I write, my nation state is spending billions of dollars to try to bring the tribalists into the modern world. However we are hampered by those Rousseauians who romanticise the tribal life.

And you old silly, nationalism is the result of universal literacy. And no more than in your fine country where nationalism was borne on the backs of newspapers and news print.

All of which doesn't even address my point. You just love to see your own words on screen.

 

[Sniffles]

We have over the last one hundred and eighty years made giant ethical strides that have not been matched in the two hundred thousand years of human history.

This is so extraordinary that it demands an explanation.

That's a highly questionable proposition. At best, we've advanced in the soft virtues, but have fallen way behind in regards to the hard virtues.

 

[Mole]

It's not sermons, but your asinine blatherings that are tiresome.

You know, my father was a Catholic convert. And like you, he was a traditional Catholic.

And so as you can imagine, we had many fine arguments.

And fortunately my father not only loved me but he was a gentleman.

And so he allowed me to grow and develop as his son and find a mind of my own.

So you can see why I smile and find your arguments familiar.

As this is a family argument.

 

[Nocapszy]

We have over the last one hundred and eighty years made giant ethical strides that have not been matched in the two hundred thousand years of human history.

Yes. I read the history texts as well.
Legislation does not constitute actual abstinence you know.

Peguy's point is not without substance. On the other hand, it is without substantiation. In those hundred and 180 years, yes it's true. We've done lots of ethical work. Of course, it has been a major concern -- people have gotten the idea that all people deserve fair and even treatment. From where, I don't know. So is the state of things.
The greater fraction of the scientific understanding has come in the last 50 years.

Some say the result is that ethics has fallen to the wayside.
Look at the figures:
Scientific discoveries -- in the millions
Ethical discoveries -- a few dozen

This, of course, ushers in the illusion that we're less ethically concerned.
A silly notion at best. That we've stopped passing ethical legislation, does not by any means suggest that we've become less ethical. The ethical laws are still enforced are they not?

And science is much much younger than society. It only makes sense that by now, ethics would be pretty solidly in place, while science, being the true infant be given more attention.
We still help the old lady across the street, but the baby needs fed, needs clothed, and needs to be taught his ethics. He will learn from his elders.

In the mean time, the ethicists need to get off the scientists' back. Let the adolescent explore and experiment. He is curious about himself.

 

[Sniffles]

Yes. I read the history texts as well.
Legislation does not constitute actual abstinence you know.

Peguy's point is not without substance. On the other hand, it is without substantiation. In those hundred and 180 years, yes it's true. We've done lots of ethical work. Of course, it has been a major concern -- people have gotten the idea that all people deserve fair and even treatment. From where, I don't know. So is the state of things.
The greater fraction of the scientific understanding has come in the last 50 years.

Some say the result is that ethics has fallen to the wayside.
Look at the figures:
Scientific discoveries -- in the millions
Ethical discoveries -- a few dozen

This, of course, ushers in the illusion that we're less ethically concerned.
A silly notion at best. That we've stopped passing ethical legislation, does not by any means suggest that we've become less ethical. The ethical laws are still enforced are they not?

And science is much much younger than society. It only makes sense that by now, ethics would be pretty solidly in place, while science, being the true infant be given more attention.
We still help the old lady across the street, but the baby needs fed, needs clothed, and needs to be taught his ethics. He will learn from his elders.

In the mean time, the ethicists need to get off the scientists' back. Let the adolescent explore and experiment. He is curious about himself.

Interesting how you try to simplistically set this up as a debate between science and ethics, as if they're mutually exclusive. Rather it's an issue of science without ethics vs. science with ethics.

Ethics provide the proper direction from which science can proceed. Even the amoralist Nietzsche agreed with this basic argument:
"Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without presuppositions’…a ‘faith’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method – a right to exist…It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."

So what are the ethical underpinning behind science, and are they valid?

 

[Nocapszy]

Interesting how you try to simplistically set this up as a debate between science and ethics, as if they're mutually exclusive. Rather it's an issue of science without ethics vs. science with ethics.

I didn't. Pay more attention.
I said simply that science won't always be ethical, given that it's in its infancy and hasn't learnt manners, but it will eventually learn. How hard is that to comprehend? I still account for ethical and non-ethical science.

Ethics provide the proper direction from which science can proceed.

Says who? The guy your signature? Who the fuck is that? I think I like CaptainChick's signature better. It says "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it"

Is it ethical to stifle curiosity? I think not. But then that's why ethics is always up for debate. Because no one can agree.

Know why? 'Cause ethics can't be measured: Can't be conclusive.
Know why? 'Cause it's not made of stuff: It doesn't exist.
Know why? 'Cause the truth doesn't care if Jimmy cracks corn, or if he rapes his sister.

Even the amoralist Nietzsche agreed with this basic argument:

One thing about me you'll need to acclimate yourself to very quickly -- I don't care who agrees to what. While I've got CC's signature in use, let's not forget that a lie is a lie even if no one believes it. It's my calculation that many people believe a lot of lies. A famous philosopher's investment in a given sentiment is not impressive, nor is it conclusive or even substantive for that matter.

He can be wrong.

"Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without presuppositions’…a ‘faith’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method – a right to exist…It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."

I always did think Nietzsche was an idiot.
Faith in what you can see is not faith. It's called observation. We can fuck it up. That does not by any means prove at all that there isn't an inherent truth. It just means we didn't find it yet.
That humans can't figure it all out does not conclude that truth doesn't can't exist without faith for understanding.
That that particular human assumes that if there were such a truth, that humans would figure it out, does conclude that he is a self-important twit with too much faith in his own human-inherited abilities.

So what are the ethical underpinning behind science, and are they valid?

?

 

[Anja]

Alienation isn't always incorrect.

Alienation from nature?

How wonderful. What's stuff is the spirit made of?

For each to discover and define.

Listen cat, science is the study of nature. There are bad scientists.
And any scientist who tells you that nature and science stand in opposition or rivalry is a bad scientist. Mock them on behalf of me please.

Good science attempts to explain confusing phenomena. Phenomena that was previously thought to be impossible. Every single time so far, logic has pulled it together.
If, in nature, you see a frog what kills an elephant, you'll soon find that scientists will try to find out just how it happened. It seemed impossible. It seemed mysterious. But it wasn't really. We were just blind to what we have no experience with. A bad scientist will tell you that nature made a mistake. It didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

A good scientist will take samples and do an autopsy of the elephant.

Alienation isn't always incorrect. Additionally, correctitude knows no perspective. Yours, mine, President Bush's Victors? Reality doesn't care. What we think. He'll just keep doing his job. Even after we stop trying to psychoanalyze him.
As long as you submit to the notion that everything fits together, you'll do fine.
And to a good scientist, deciphering the mystery is better than any video game.

Okay, so I track most of this and don't have any urgent disagreement.


Where?

Oh please, don't ask me to write down everything I read for your approval. I'd just lose the index somewhere. Have to take my word for it. If you have trouble taking my word for it, ask yourself if this may not be possible, considering the nameless wonders we are discovering.

 

[Jack Flak]

We all have our areas of trust, but when you say something like (paraphrasing) "Pursuit of understanding in a scientific manner is a fool's errand" ya gotta expect a little comeback.

 

[Anja]

Hey! Hey! Wasn't me. Honest!

 

[Jack Flak]

Hey! Hey! Wasn't me. Honest!

Disowning a personal philosophy so quickly is unbecoming of one so spiritual!

 

[Anja]

Whatchutalkinabout?

I don't recall saying that.