Is there anything wrong for human beings to manipulate nature and use nature as a resource? If yes why? If not, why not? Discuss cases of genetically modified food or animal testing. How would you draw the line between what we should and should not do?
No, Why would it be?
I do not believe that there is anything wrong for Man to manipulate nature and use 'nature' as a resource.
First of all I do not believe that there is a dichotomy between Man and nature. Man is a part of nature and therefore all actions of Man is an expression of nature. Even genetic manipulation is an expression, a process of nature which just happen to involve Man.
Of course we can insist on the differentiation between Man and 'nature', 'nature' being a set complimentary to Man, all that is not Man. Many would say that nature does not exist for the sake of Man. I would probably agree. But neither does Man exist for the sake of 'nature'. Man can exist for the sake of Man, and this can be seen as the 'natural order'. This is how every species exist in my view, this is the reason for reproduction.
Man has always 'manipulated' nature, our ancestors manipulated the genes of swine, poultry, horses, camels, by their own means, a eugenics of their own. There's nothing new with genetic manipulation, we just found a more effective method.
However I believe that senseless violence towards other species -be it plants, animals, or bacteria- is not justified, not because I see them as ends, but that those actions is inhumane, contrary to our nature, damaging to our psychology.
Sunday, 18 October 2015
Monday, 24 August 2015
Our Other Half
Aristophanes has a very memorable analogy of love in Plato's The Symposium, one which is surprisingly widely accepted. Although many believed that his explanation is intended to be comic and not in any way accounting for real events, let's just take our imagination to a world where what he said holds true.
In summary, Aristophanes mentioned in The Symposium how humans are originally a being with two heads, four arms and four legs. We were such a powerful force that we are a significant threat when we decided to attack the gods. Zeus then takes his lightning bolt to split us in half, and scattered our halves throughout the Earth, so that our lives will be significantly spent on seeking our other half. Thus love is an irrational force in a person to seek their other half. A lot of people will find this romantic, but suppose that this is true, it might mean a few things.
First, is that we are no longer perfectly rational. It is one thing to split our four-handed persona into two weaker beings, and from The Symposium the split is designed such that it is impossible to physically combine with our other half. Scattering us and 'cursing' us into an endless pursue for our other half is another thing. This gives us a very significant force of irrationality as a human being, so that we are too busy doing something irrational to think about anything else. The only reason our great Zeus did this is that our rational thinking another thing that makes us powerful, and threatening. Hence it is fine to assume that we were perfectly rational in our four-legged state.
Second, is that love is necessary for rational thinking. This is an implication to the previous point, actually. Although it is impossible for us to go back to our perfect state, it might be possible for us to go back to our perfect rationale once we are one with our other half. That is to say, suppose that we can synchronize our thoughts perfectly with our other half, we will attain the truest kind of rational thinking with which the search for truth might be possible. Hence get laid, O virgin philosopher; lest your pursue be for naught.
Third, is that it is a fact that the perfect human seeks to take down gods. It is still debatable whether the gods here are supposed to represent pagan gods or the being that created us. It is a fact, however, that we sought to take down the superior being. Is that how we will end up should we attain our rational thinking back?
Again, this is just a what-if about a scenario made by a comedian. Yet how fascinating it is should all that be true.
In summary, Aristophanes mentioned in The Symposium how humans are originally a being with two heads, four arms and four legs. We were such a powerful force that we are a significant threat when we decided to attack the gods. Zeus then takes his lightning bolt to split us in half, and scattered our halves throughout the Earth, so that our lives will be significantly spent on seeking our other half. Thus love is an irrational force in a person to seek their other half. A lot of people will find this romantic, but suppose that this is true, it might mean a few things.
First, is that we are no longer perfectly rational. It is one thing to split our four-handed persona into two weaker beings, and from The Symposium the split is designed such that it is impossible to physically combine with our other half. Scattering us and 'cursing' us into an endless pursue for our other half is another thing. This gives us a very significant force of irrationality as a human being, so that we are too busy doing something irrational to think about anything else. The only reason our great Zeus did this is that our rational thinking another thing that makes us powerful, and threatening. Hence it is fine to assume that we were perfectly rational in our four-legged state.
Second, is that love is necessary for rational thinking. This is an implication to the previous point, actually. Although it is impossible for us to go back to our perfect state, it might be possible for us to go back to our perfect rationale once we are one with our other half. That is to say, suppose that we can synchronize our thoughts perfectly with our other half, we will attain the truest kind of rational thinking with which the search for truth might be possible. Hence get laid, O virgin philosopher; lest your pursue be for naught.
Third, is that it is a fact that the perfect human seeks to take down gods. It is still debatable whether the gods here are supposed to represent pagan gods or the being that created us. It is a fact, however, that we sought to take down the superior being. Is that how we will end up should we attain our rational thinking back?
Again, this is just a what-if about a scenario made by a comedian. Yet how fascinating it is should all that be true.
Sunday, 2 August 2015
Do Not Offend the Common Contemporary People
What the rational should realize is that there is no neutral position, there is no objective view, there is no unbiased opinions. Un-neutrality makes a position, subjectivity makes a view, and biases shapes opinions.
There is no relative morals, for if morals is relative there is no morals. Bull excrements and fairy tales is what morals is to the modern people. But they would never accept that there is no morals, that the 'evil' Hitler is just as moral as martin Luther King Jr.
Their thoughts are not a product of thinking processes, they are not thoughts, they are noises. They do not base his noises on premises and conclusions. Their noises are just manifestations of the crowd or their current concentrations of different hormones in their body. Packs of animals is what they reduced humanity into.
Do not offend them for they will growl if you do. For they have to defend their pack with sheer number, for their intellect is weak, but together they unite. The Crowd is what they are.
Thursday, 23 April 2015
A Self-Reflection
This is the contradiction that lies in the center of human nature : That he wants to exist but he does not want to experience his existence. He finds various means to distract himself from his experience of mere existence. Sins, thrills, self-destructive relationships (self destructive meaning it destroys his sense of self), popular music, appearances, The Crowd, are means to shift the man's focus from his own existence. Of course we can elaborate more on how these various despicable means distract the individuality of the individual, but in this writing i would like to focus on the mirror.
The mirror deceives. People say when we look at the mirror, we see ourselves (it is not really something that people say, but it is widely thought). But is this true? Can the mirror show us our Selves? This is what the mirror tells you, that you are an image, an appearance, you are a material thing, all of you can be contained inside a reflective surface. But is this true? Can your nature and existence be reduced to how light is reflected from your physical body? Even if we are merely a physical body, the mirror still can not grasp our nature and existence. The mirror deceives, it distracts you from experiencing the true self.
If you want to know what you are like, do you think that looking at the mirror can give you a better picture compared to looking into your experience of the self? Self-contemplation is a much better way for that. Experiencing your experience of the self and existence, and self-contemplating that experience is a better form of self-reflection. 'I am' is a much better description of my existence and individuality than 'I look tired'. Reflect on this 'I think therefore I am' and not 'my eyes look gloomy therefore i look tired'. But if all of that is too hard, think of this simple thought 'I exist'.
The mirror deceives. People say when we look at the mirror, we see ourselves (it is not really something that people say, but it is widely thought). But is this true? Can the mirror show us our Selves? This is what the mirror tells you, that you are an image, an appearance, you are a material thing, all of you can be contained inside a reflective surface. But is this true? Can your nature and existence be reduced to how light is reflected from your physical body? Even if we are merely a physical body, the mirror still can not grasp our nature and existence. The mirror deceives, it distracts you from experiencing the true self.
If you want to know what you are like, do you think that looking at the mirror can give you a better picture compared to looking into your experience of the self? Self-contemplation is a much better way for that. Experiencing your experience of the self and existence, and self-contemplating that experience is a better form of self-reflection. 'I am' is a much better description of my existence and individuality than 'I look tired'. Reflect on this 'I think therefore I am' and not 'my eyes look gloomy therefore i look tired'. But if all of that is too hard, think of this simple thought 'I exist'.
Thursday, 16 April 2015
The 'Ethics' of the Common Contemporary People
"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?"
"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
The Common Contemporary People, well the majority of humans, would pull the lever to kill one instead of five, but would not push the fatman off to save five. Someone with a coherent moral or ethical beliefs would call this inconsistency, incoherence. You may say that they are confused between a consequentialist moral theory and a deontological one. I believe they are not confused, they are coherent (there is a core of beliefs that make this coherent).
The common contemporary people ascribe to a somewhat coherent moral belief. Although they may deny it, they believe in an egoistic consequentialistic one. They decide on the 'morality of an action by weighing the implications that the action might cause to themselves. They base their ethics or morality on the consequences that it will bring to their psychology mainly.
To kill the first one would give them less guilt and the comfort of feeling that they have brought more good. It may even make them feel heroic. However, to push someone off in the second scenario would leave them with guilt, especially because they need to touch their victim physically, or more guilt because he is fat. The alternative would be non-involvement which would not leave any guilt, but instead provide a detachment from the event. They can assure themselves that they could not do otherwise. They stand before no judge of morality. Personal gain is the focus of the contemporary people. The only thing that determines the rightness of an action is how the action make them feel.
This may be an immoral ethical belief, but this is a coherent moral theory nonetheless. At least it is better than a relativistic one, or not.
"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
The Common Contemporary People, well the majority of humans, would pull the lever to kill one instead of five, but would not push the fatman off to save five. Someone with a coherent moral or ethical beliefs would call this inconsistency, incoherence. You may say that they are confused between a consequentialist moral theory and a deontological one. I believe they are not confused, they are coherent (there is a core of beliefs that make this coherent).
The common contemporary people ascribe to a somewhat coherent moral belief. Although they may deny it, they believe in an egoistic consequentialistic one. They decide on the 'morality of an action by weighing the implications that the action might cause to themselves. They base their ethics or morality on the consequences that it will bring to their psychology mainly.
To kill the first one would give them less guilt and the comfort of feeling that they have brought more good. It may even make them feel heroic. However, to push someone off in the second scenario would leave them with guilt, especially because they need to touch their victim physically, or more guilt because he is fat. The alternative would be non-involvement which would not leave any guilt, but instead provide a detachment from the event. They can assure themselves that they could not do otherwise. They stand before no judge of morality. Personal gain is the focus of the contemporary people. The only thing that determines the rightness of an action is how the action make them feel.
This may be an immoral ethical belief, but this is a coherent moral theory nonetheless. At least it is better than a relativistic one, or not.
Postulating the Third Nothingness
Now the problem is this. True essence, true knowledge, true moral law, true Deity; Humans are always concerned with the True. We seek the absolute, we seek Truth (even when we do not realize it).
Thinking about the number two as a Platonic object or as a merely useful device in arithmetic separately never satisfy our desire to have the true knowledge of the true essence of the number two. We want to know what the number two really is in-and-of itself.
The same applies to Nothingness. Most of the time saying that there may be two Nothingness, either NS-Nothing and NN-Nothing never satisfy the desire to know Nothingness in-and-of-itself. Therefore, to complete my terminology of Nothingness, I shall postulate the Third nothingness
3. True Nothingness, NT-Nothing
So what is true nothingness? Like most beings, i have no clue. NT-Nothing may be NS-Nothing and/or NN-Nothing but it may be separate from them. For Heidegger, NS-Nothing is NT-Nothing, NN-Nothing is derived from NS-Nothing. While on the opposite end, to most modern men, NN-Nothing is NT-Nothing and NS-Nothing is just a product of human imagination. Still in reality, NN-Nothing and NS-Nothing may be distinct and may be derived from NT-Nothing. But I am not writing anything about their natures. The distinction in terminology does not imply a true distinction in their nature (if they have any, or if it is even appropriate to talk of natures). The NT-Nothing terminology, just like the first two nothingness merely helps us when we think and talk about nothingness, they are simply devices.
Thinking about the number two as a Platonic object or as a merely useful device in arithmetic separately never satisfy our desire to have the true knowledge of the true essence of the number two. We want to know what the number two really is in-and-of itself.
The same applies to Nothingness. Most of the time saying that there may be two Nothingness, either NS-Nothing and NN-Nothing never satisfy the desire to know Nothingness in-and-of-itself. Therefore, to complete my terminology of Nothingness, I shall postulate the Third nothingness
3. True Nothingness, NT-Nothing
So what is true nothingness? Like most beings, i have no clue. NT-Nothing may be NS-Nothing and/or NN-Nothing but it may be separate from them. For Heidegger, NS-Nothing is NT-Nothing, NN-Nothing is derived from NS-Nothing. While on the opposite end, to most modern men, NN-Nothing is NT-Nothing and NS-Nothing is just a product of human imagination. Still in reality, NN-Nothing and NS-Nothing may be distinct and may be derived from NT-Nothing. But I am not writing anything about their natures. The distinction in terminology does not imply a true distinction in their nature (if they have any, or if it is even appropriate to talk of natures). The NT-Nothing terminology, just like the first two nothingness merely helps us when we think and talk about nothingness, they are simply devices.
Sunday, 5 April 2015
Defining Nothingness
Nothing, Nothingness, Emptiness, Absence, The Empty Set, Zero. Human attempts to grasp nothingness? Or are they independent concepts with or without a common element, A mere common theme perhaps?
Having been contemplating on the concept and the world of nothingness, I devised a way to categorize our nothing-related ideas (or rather confusions) . Our confusions (Maybe calling them ideas is inappropriate, hence i use another term) can be broadly categorized as follows:
1. Nothing can be something called nothingness, NS-Nothing.
2. Nothing can be none-ness, NN-Nothing
NS-Nothing may be conceived as the abstract object nothingness, in which the idea, abstract objects, of the empty set and zero may be derived from. Therefore NS-Nothing is something as it is an abstract object. Therefore, describing the properties or essence of this object would not be a problem, since it is really something. And also maybe, conceiving a universe with only NS-Nothing within it is possible. Hence the metaphysical rhetoric (being distinct from the logical rhetoric) regarding nothingness is basically dealing with NS-Nothing. Metaphysics is the study of being after all. This is Nothingness.
NN-Nothing on the other hand, is a logical device. It is not conceived or grasped, it is used. It is not within the domain of metaphysics, it is within the domain of logic or linguistics. This is the confusion of nothingness that we use in negation and the idea of emptiness or absence. It is this mere none-ness that Alexios Fidei refered to when he talked of nothingness in his reply to my writing on nothingness (A Reply to “Nothing” by Severinus Pseudosolipsist). This is the confusion that we use in logical operations, perhaps wa can call it a logical operator. This is Nothing.
So are the NN-NS distinction a real distinction? Is it even reasonable to differentiate nothing from nothing? Can talking about nothing have any meaning? Are NS-Nothing and NN-nothing in anyway related, or are they independent, or is one derived from the other? These questions are beyond this mere attempt to make thinking about Nothing a little bit clearer, this is only a way in which I structure my ideas and confusions regarding Nothing-Nothingness.
Having been contemplating on the concept and the world of nothingness, I devised a way to categorize our nothing-related ideas (or rather confusions) . Our confusions (Maybe calling them ideas is inappropriate, hence i use another term) can be broadly categorized as follows:
1. Nothing can be something called nothingness, NS-Nothing.
2. Nothing can be none-ness, NN-Nothing
NS-Nothing may be conceived as the abstract object nothingness, in which the idea, abstract objects, of the empty set and zero may be derived from. Therefore NS-Nothing is something as it is an abstract object. Therefore, describing the properties or essence of this object would not be a problem, since it is really something. And also maybe, conceiving a universe with only NS-Nothing within it is possible. Hence the metaphysical rhetoric (being distinct from the logical rhetoric) regarding nothingness is basically dealing with NS-Nothing. Metaphysics is the study of being after all. This is Nothingness.
NN-Nothing on the other hand, is a logical device. It is not conceived or grasped, it is used. It is not within the domain of metaphysics, it is within the domain of logic or linguistics. This is the confusion of nothingness that we use in negation and the idea of emptiness or absence. It is this mere none-ness that Alexios Fidei refered to when he talked of nothingness in his reply to my writing on nothingness (A Reply to “Nothing” by Severinus Pseudosolipsist). This is the confusion that we use in logical operations, perhaps wa can call it a logical operator. This is Nothing.
So are the NN-NS distinction a real distinction? Is it even reasonable to differentiate nothing from nothing? Can talking about nothing have any meaning? Are NS-Nothing and NN-nothing in anyway related, or are they independent, or is one derived from the other? These questions are beyond this mere attempt to make thinking about Nothing a little bit clearer, this is only a way in which I structure my ideas and confusions regarding Nothing-Nothingness.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
A Wishful Thought on the Rationality of Man
This is what i wish to believe, that in everyman there is this core which contains perfectly coherent beliefs, although these beliefs can have quirky states where ones psychology plays an important role. Although this core may change its state, this core instructs all of one's desires, actions, and thoughts. This core lies deep inside the unconciousness, yet its state perfectly follows the will of the man and vaguely accessible to the individual in the natural mode. Hence no one is guilty of stubbornness, ignorance, and incoherence. All is rational, only all have different presuppositions. Hence all has one rationality, and the absoluteness of logic is glorified.
Yet i know that this wish is absurd. All that i can have is a postulated core in everyman. This core constucted from inference from the actions and words of man. This core may be so small, yet the smallest core will satisfy my wish as the smallest core will show that even the most seemingly irrational man is indeed rational. But this is still just a wishful thought.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
The One and Nothingness, a Plotinian Imagination
Is there an empty set (nothigness itself) in the world of forms, the empty set and the One at opposite ends.
Or if one is the size of the set containing the empty set, does the One contain this nothingness?
If the One consists of nothingness alone does that mean the One is dependent on nothingness or on the empty set. Or does it mean that the One simply depend on nothing, except on its own being, on its own being as a set?
But if nothingness constitutes the one, everything that emanates from the one, emanates from nothingness, but where does this emanation end, does it end at nothing (but nothingness is within the one), so is there an aether in the world of ideas or space-dimension or the greeks' khaos. Nothingness emanates separating and annihilating this aether or khaos. And this is creation out of khaos?
Or is nothingness just the absence of the one, should nothingness depend on the existence of the one? Because nothingness is contingent and relies on the positive truth of the One? So does nothingness emanate from the One instead? Is nothigness the first aeon (in the gnostic/neoplatonic sense)? Is nothingness a demiurge subordinate to the One?
Or can nothingness depend on the One and one depend on nothingness, is this how the demiurgy of nothingness start? And all is derived from one? Or is nothingness and the One is one and the same? Are they two aspects of the same substance? Or are they a binarian entity sustaining one anothers' truth and existence.
Or if one is the size of the set containing the empty set, does the One contain this nothingness?
If the One consists of nothingness alone does that mean the One is dependent on nothingness or on the empty set. Or does it mean that the One simply depend on nothing, except on its own being, on its own being as a set?
But if nothingness constitutes the one, everything that emanates from the one, emanates from nothingness, but where does this emanation end, does it end at nothing (but nothingness is within the one), so is there an aether in the world of ideas or space-dimension or the greeks' khaos. Nothingness emanates separating and annihilating this aether or khaos. And this is creation out of khaos?
Or is nothingness just the absence of the one, should nothingness depend on the existence of the one? Because nothingness is contingent and relies on the positive truth of the One? So does nothingness emanate from the One instead? Is nothigness the first aeon (in the gnostic/neoplatonic sense)? Is nothingness a demiurge subordinate to the One?
Or can nothingness depend on the One and one depend on nothingness, is this how the demiurgy of nothingness start? And all is derived from one? Or is nothingness and the One is one and the same? Are they two aspects of the same substance? Or are they a binarian entity sustaining one anothers' truth and existence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)