Limits of Thinking

[FreeChile]

RandFan posted:

Reading through the thread has left me a bit confused. Have you abandoned the notion that the world is in a tragic state or is the premise even important any more? If it is can you define "tragic state"? Please define "harm"?

From the beginning of the thread, that phrase has been parenthetical, hence the thread name “Limits of Thinking.”

I can offer you some examples of harm to life, human, animal and plant. Harm in this sense means destruction and stifling of life, which includes individual as well as collective. Individuals who believe they have been chosen in some way and destroy human life as a result. History is filled with such stories. The businessman who directs the spilling of oil in the waters and contamination of the environment. I could go on and on listing examples. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate any further.

Does the problem lie with "thinking" or simply with the inevitable conflicts that arise when state, goals and desires conflict?

If we look at the world around us we are tempted to believe that the world outside of human contact is in stasis. This simply is not true. It never has been true. The ant wants what the tree provides and the tree wants to protect itself from the ant. Both are in an evolutionary arms race. As soon as one overcomes the mechanism of the other new defenses or offenses evolve.

Utopia does not exist because,

1.) humans are diverse and have competing goals, definitions and meaning as to what is "tragic", "success", "quality of life", etc..

2.) There is no such thing as stasis.

The interpretation of state, the setting of goals, and the feeling of desires, are all within the framework of thought. This includes the idea of utopia. So utopia itself is idealistic idiocy.

Our thinking is simply a product of our evolution. It has served us well in that we have become successful as a species in the anthropological sense of the word.

I would reject the notion that we go back to where we began. Where thought has been allowed to solve problems we are measurably better than our forbearers. It does not follow that because one solution brings other problems that nothing has been solved. Of course, again, it depends on one's definition of better off.

The idea of going back is nonsensical. Humans could not return to any past state even if they wanted to. The past has passed.

Correct, “It does not follow that because one solution brings other problems that nothing has been solved.” What follows is that solutions come with problems. Also, what represents a problem and what represents a solution is subjective. It is subjective both on an individual level as well as a cultural level. For example, to a person dying of hunger or aids in Africa, the technological advancement is insignificant compared to the condition that person is in. Likewise, to a child dying of a bullet wound.

I don't think the discussion can advance without defining your terms.

Does it matter? Very few of the threads on this site have advanced in any significant way. It would be a delusion to think differently of this one. If anything, it serves to clarify language a bit.

 

[RandFan]

From the beginning of the thread, that phrase has been parenthetical, hence the thread name “Limits of Thinking.”

I don't think that follows. How does "limits of thinking" qualify your proposition?

I can offer you some examples of harm to life, human, animal and plant. Harm in this sense means destruction and stifling of life, which includes individual as well as collective. Individuals who believe they have been chosen in some way and destroy human life as a result. History is filled with such stories. The businessman who directs the spilling of oil in the waters and contamination of the environment. I could go on and on listing examples. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate any further.

No, I would like you to answer the question. The listing of "harms" does not prove your premise.

The interpretation of state, the setting of goals, and the feeling of desires, are all within the framework of thought. This includes the idea of utopia. So utopia itself is idealistic idiocy.

Bingo, I think you have your answer.

The idea of going back is nonsensical. Humans could not return to any past state even if they wanted to. The past has passed.

Then why did you state: "So we end up going back to where we began."?

What follows is that solutions come with problems.

Yes.

Also, what represents a problem and what represents a solution is subjective. It is subjective both on an individual level as well as a cultural level. For example, to a person dying of hunger or aids in Africa, the technological advancement is insignificant compared to the condition that person is in. Likewise, to a child dying of a bullet wound.

Yes, and your point? Look, don't get me wrong. I think you might have a valid point but I think it is lost in your rhetoric.

Does it matter?

Absolutely. The forum name is critical thinking not fuzzy notion discussion.

Very few of the threads on this site have advanced in any significant way.

I think you are confusing consensus with advancement.

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

You have a proposition but you lack any coherent argument. I think your discussion belongs in another forum. That you want to discuss human thought does not make it relevant to this forum. That being said, I think it is possible for you to clean your argument up a bit and provide a valid argument but you will need to justify your premises and connect them to your proposition. To date you have failed to do so. Start by defining and justifying your terms.

It would be a delusion to think differently of this one. If anything, it serves to clarify language a bit.

How?

 

[FreeChile]

Posted by RandFan:
I don't think that follows. How does "limits of thinking" qualify your proposition?

What is it that you think does not follow? What propositions are you interested in exploring? From the beginning of the thread, I have not been interested in proving nor disproving any propositions. What I have done is ask questions, among other things.

No, I would like you to answer the question. The listing of "harms" does not prove your premise.

Tell me what premise it is that you would like me to prove. If it is in fact a statement I have made and which I continue to hold, then I will try to prove it.

Bingo, I think you have your answer.

I don’t know what you mean. I have not made any arguments for this idea of utopia you bring up. In fact, you and I have been the only individuals to use that word here. This would be your own misinterpretation of what I have posted—unless you are referring to something else.

Then why did you state: "So we end up going back to where we began."?

Why not repeat the whole paragraph or the entire post where this was written? Once you read it, you will note that it is not talking about going back to a previous state in the way you imply. You have again interpreted this your way.

Yes, and your point? Look, don't get me wrong. I think you might have a valid point but I think it is lost in your rhetoric.

Please point to me what you consider to be rhetoric from what I have said. Do you mean “rhetoric” in the way a politician may distort language to hide the truth?

Absolutely. The forum name is critical thinking not fuzzy notion discussion.

What do you mean by “fuzzy notion discussion?” Is this connected to “fuzzy logic” or some paradigm I may not be familiar with?

I think you are confusing consensus with advancement.

You used the word “advance”, and I replied to your use of that word. Also, I would not confuse consensus with advancement. I think you are misusing the word “consensus”. So I will try to interpret what you have said. Do you mean that we should not confuse quantity with quality? Then you would be correct. Yet, you seem to single out this thread to the point that you feel it does not even belong here. Why? What is it about this thread that is making you uncomfortable?

You have a proposition but you lack any coherent argument.

You have created the proposition and the argument in your head. I have explicitly said that I am hesitant to open my mouth. Please go back and read where I said that. In the course of this thread, individuals have made certain statements and those statements have been considered as part of the discussion. Likewise, I have made certain statements, which have been part of the discussion.

I think your discussion belongs in another forum.

So you realize this is a discussion, although there have been some elements of argumentation.

That you want to discuss human thought does not make it relevant to this forum.

This discussion has not been solely about thought. We have talked about intelligence, analysis, problem solving, belief, and life, among other things. How do you suggest we re-write the rules of this forum?

In any case, perhaps the administrators of this forum will move this and other threads to other areas as they’ve done and said in the past. So we don’t know where this thread will end up. Perhaps it belongs in the Philosophy and Religion forum along with other Critical Thinking threads. Yet I don’t see why a Critical Thinker would not be interested in inquiring on the limits of his thinking—if such limits indeed exist.

That being said, I think it is possible for you to clean your argument up a bit and provide a valid argument but you will need to justify your premises and connect them to your proposition. To date you have failed to do so. Start by defining and justifying your terms.

This is the only thread, in this Critical Thinking forum, to which you have contributed (at least since the last relocation of threads). Why are you being so inconsistent? Why are you demanding that THIS thread, and not others, have a “valid argument”?

How?

Even though it may not be possible to know precisely what someone else means, reading replies, interpreting them, pointing out logical problems, questioning underlying assumptions, asking for clarification, and offering clarifications helps to clarify statements made within this discussion.

 

[RandFan]

Let's start again.

For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair.

What is the purpose of this statement? Is it your belief that the world is in a tragic state?

It is therefore not particularly difficult to identify the problems of the world, to project our own meaning on them, and to suggest solutions.

This statement assumes the first statement but you have not yet established the first statement. We don't even know if you are one of "those" who believe.

What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

These questions seem to me to be disjointed. Is this just a stream of consciousness?

If we have in fact reached the limits, is there a way we can know that we have so we can realize it and ultimately stop thinking and perhaps give something else a chance?

I guess the problem that I have is that your thoughts are not coherent. You present a problem without any foundation except to say "For those who believe this to be the case..."

Consider the following:

• For those who believe this to be the case, the moon is made of green cheese.
  
• For those who believe this to be the case, the earth is flat.

These statements, like yours, are non-starters unless you then establish a proposition.

To date we don't know what you mean by "tragic state". You don't define it. You only provide a list of "harms". Yet there has always been "harms" which raises another question, why should anyone think that the world is in a tragic state based on your list of harms?

Ok, now back to some of your responses to the last post.

Why not repeat the whole paragraph or the entire post where this was written? Once you read it, you will note that it is not talking about going back to a previous state in the way you imply.

I imply no such thing. Perhaps you should go back and read my paragraph...wait let me quote it. I will quote you first.

FreeChile
However, the solutions we provide never seem to work—at least not for long. So we end up going back to where we began.

I would reject the notion that we go back to where we began. Where thought has been allowed to solve problems we are measurably better than our forbearers.

So, I'm only rebutting your statement not interjecting something different. I think our solutions do work. We DON'T go back to where we began in the sense that YOU use it.

Do you mean “rhetoric” in the way a politician may distort language to hide the truth?

On a forum such as this, discourse is typically divided into the rhetorical and non-rhetorical. Not all discourse is used to establish a proposition or advance concepts by the use of logic. Often persuasion is used to get other to accept a premise. Examples include flowery prose, clichés, platitudes, meaningless statements, bullying, etc. Just because a person chooses to employee rhetoric that is not evidence that one is trying to hide the truth.

Yet, you seem to single out this thread to the point that you feel it does not even belong here. Why? What is it about this thread that is making you uncomfortable?

Great question. Thank you.

It seems to me that any discussion of critical thought should be rooted in sound modes of logic. To fail to do so is like exploring skepticism by reading tea leaves.

You have created the proposition and the argument in your head.

From an earlier post by you.

Thinking does not seem to get us out of the cycle I've outlined. So how could it be a solution, either fast or slow?

This IS a proposition. The word "seems" is defined as "appears to be true".

Yet I don’t see why a Critical Thinker would not be interested in inquiring on the limits of his thinking—if such limits indeed exist.

Of course, no argument.

However I would think a critical thinker would posit a proposition and try to advance the proposition by asking questions or establishing premises and drawing inference.

Example 1: The sky is blue, why?

Example 2: The sky is blue.

(P1) Visible light is composed of many colors.

(P2) Blue light passing through the outer atmosphere is scattered while all other colors pass straight through.

Of course such a an argument need not be so formal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if I were to have started this thread I would have done it thus.

Looking at history there seems to be a vicious cycle caused when humans beings try to solve problems because solutions only seem to breed more problems.

Example: For thousands of years humans have invented labor saving devices to avoid the drudgery of physical labor. But these solutions have caused an epidemic in obesity.

Questions:

1.) Does thinking create a vicious cycle?

2.) If so is there a way out of the cycle?

Or

Assume that the world is in a tragic state. Assume that this state is caused by a vicious cycle caused by thinking. Is there a way out of the cycle?

This is the only thread, in this Critical Thinking forum, to which you have contributed (at least since the last relocation of threads). Why are you being so inconsistent?

Non sequitor. It doesn't follow that just because I only responded to this thread that I am being inconsistent.

Why are you demanding that THIS thread, and not others, have a “valid argument”?

This is the only thread in this forum that I have bothered to read.

 

[Throg]

Originally posted by FreeChile
For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state. It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair

Originally posted by RandFan
What is the purpose of this statement? Is it your belief that the world is in a tragic state?

First of all, let me apologise for the appalling formatting of the above. I'm new here and haven't figure out how to use those separating lines which make replies so much more readable. Any help would be appreciated.

It would appear to me that the purpose of the first of FreeChile's statements - For those who believe this to be the case, the world is in a tragic state - is to advance a proposition, For those who believe this to be the case being recognisable related to it seems or let it be that . It is surely irrelevant, for the purposes of critical thinking, whether FreeChile believes this or not. It is relevant whether or not the premise is sound and I would have to say that it is: so many tragic things happen on both the small and large scale that it seems entirely justifiable to say that the world is in a tragic state. E.G.

• A large minority of mankind overeat to the point of shortening their lives while a very large number starve to death.
• Much of mankind is directly or indirectly involved in fighting wars
• Many humanbeings hold irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence thus negating seemingly the most powerful tool they have for bettering existence, their intelligence.

If I wished to, I could extend this list indefinitely. I could also make a list of good things about the world but it does not seem to me to lessen the tragedy that the world is not as good as it conceivably could be. Nor would it make the state of the world any less tragic to point out that the state of the world has always been tragic. One might argue that it is relatively more or less tragic than it has been in the past but the state of the world is currently tragic.

The second of FreeChile's statements - It is corrupted and possibly beyond repair - does not seem to be of the same character. Corrupted implies some perfect state from which it has fallen while possibly beyond repair implies that it's current state reflects a brokenness relative to it's original state. It would be helpful if FreeChile would clarify whether this characterisation was intentional since, if it was, this would appear to be a religious discussion rather than "simply" one of the limits of thinking. If this was not his intention, perhaps, for the sake of the discussion he would withdraw this part of his original statement. I don't think this would in any way weaken his initial position, rather it would focus the discussion away from a seemingly religious subtext (unless of course, it was FreeChile's intention that there should be such a subtext).


What is at the root of this vicious cycle and is there a way we can escape it? Is this a topic for critical thinking, or even for thinking? Or have we simply reached the limits of thinking when we tackle something like this?

Originally posted by RandFan
These questions seem to me to be disjointed. Is this just a stream of consciousness?
I don't think these questions are particularly disjointed. I think FreeChile is asking a number of apparently related questions which all serve to illustrate and elucidate an intriguing central question which cannot easily be put into a single sentence inquiry, though like a fool I will try:

"is rational thought the best solution to problems in our world?"

The number of objections I anticipate to this formulation should handily illustrate why I think FreeChile was justified in addressing the problem with a compound question.

I would suggest that the question What is at the root of this vicious cycle does not follow from FreeChile's initial propositions. That the solution to a problem directly or indirectly leads to further problems does not imply that the problems produced are equivalent in impact or importance to those which the solution corrected. It is conceivable and, I think, rather plausible to suppose that the trend is something along the lines of two-steps forward, one-step back. A vicious spiral, perhaps? It is also conceivable that the trend is indeed a vicious circle with no net progress whatsoever but given the apparently obvious improvements in length and quality of life - for human beings at least - over recorded history I think the burden of proof is on those opposing the net progress view of history.

Why are you demanding that THIS thread, and not others, have a “valid argument”?

I don't think this is particularly relevant. It is sufficient to acknowledge that the thread should have a valid argument. That RandFan has not taken the time to set this right throughout the entire forum is clearly a reflection of his innate laziness and low moral character. I trust he is ashamed of himself.

To FreeChile: I think you are posting at least one very interesting question about the value and limits of human thought but I am not sure that your original posting expresses that question in as unambiguous way as it might. That is not meant to be an attack, I am sure the question was pretty clear in your mind just as this is all very clear in my mind but then we each know what we mean implicitly whereas everyone else knows what we mean only when we make it explicit. Would it be too much too ask that you reformulate your question in light of the various "problems" that have been raised with your initial formulation. As I have said, I think you have some pretty interesting concepts in mind and I would like to see them explored here.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think this is particularly relevant. It is sufficient to acknowledge that the thread should have a valid argument. That RandFan has not taken the time to set this right throughout the entire forum is clearly a reflection of his innate laziness and low moral character. I trust he is ashamed of himself.

Oh for the want of a simple smilie.

Hey Throg,

Welcome to the forum.

At the bottom of each post is a "quote" button and a "post reply" button. If you use the "quote" button you will get the text formatted for a quote. Insert extra start and stop html to offset any text that you would like to separate.

My thanks for the help. Having a desire for all things to be logical does not necessarily make one logical. I try though.

 

[Throg]

Oh for the want of a simple smilie.

Hey Throg,

Welcome to the forum.

At the bottom of each post is a "quote" button and a "post reply" button. If you use the "quote" button you will get the text formatted for a quote. Insert extra start and stop html to offset any text that you would like to separate.

My thanks for the help. Having a desire for all things to be logical does not necessarily make one logical. I try though.

Thanks, that's really helpful.

I'm very new to this forum malarkey so I'm not very comfortable with smilies plus I've always kind of liked deadpan sarcasm. Maybe that doesn't work so well on the internet. Please feel free to mentally append to the end of the paragraph where I castigate you for failing to take on the duty of arbiter of logic for the entire forum.

I'll try to figure out smilies for my next post.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks, that's really helpful.

I'm very new to this forum malarkey so I'm not very comfortable with smilies plus I've always kind of liked deadpan sarcasm. Maybe that doesn't work so well on the internet. Please feel free to mentally append to the end of the paragraph where I castigate you for failing to take on the duty of arbiter of logic for the entire forum.

I'll try to figure out smilies for my next post.

Smilies are not allowed in this, the critical thinking forum. In any event the smilie was for my use. I found your sarcasm damn funny. Made funnier by the fact that I often come off as if I am the arbiter of logic for the entire forum while at the same time mangling my logic and using fallacy. I like to think I would have driven Lewis Carroll to drinking.

 

[Throg]

Thanks for the welcome, by the way and as it seems we don't have funky graphical smilies on this forum, I propose to use: | as the closest I can come to a deadpan smiley. Hope that helps. Oh, and trying to be logical is the best us non-supernatural beings can manage. Some of us can't even manage that. : |

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the welcome, by the way and as it seems we don't have funky graphical smilies on this forum, I propose to use: | as the closest I can come to a deadpan smiley. Hope that helps. Oh, and trying to be logical is the best us non-supernatural beings can manage. Some of us can't even manage that. : |

Cool, and I agree that FreeChile has some ideas worth exploring. I just had a difficult time figuring out exactly where he was going.

What is a "tragic state"? Is there a threshold of tragedy that causes a tragic state or would any amount of tragedy constitute a "tragic state"? I take my cue from the Greek tragedy. According to Aristotle tragedy is inevitable catastrophy caused by a tragic flaw (in this instance the flaw would be thinking itself IIUC).

Your list does not fit Aristotle's definition IMO. Is this your understanding or do you see "tragic state" in a different light?

 

[Throg]

Well there's a good example of the limits of thinking. I put all my brainpower into trying to figure out a way to add smilies to my post and got nowhere only to discover that RandFan had told me that while I was busy finding that out for myself.

As to the questions FreeChile raised in his intial post and at the risk of making myself look foolish pending a clarificaiton of the intent of that post by Mr. Chile himself, here are my thoughts:

prima face , it would seem that there are no theoretical limits to thinking. While it is clearly the case that there are concepts which are too complex to be analysed consciously in their entirety, concepts can always be broken down into smaller concepts which can be analysed. This seems to me to be analogous to the way mathematicians working on complex equations work on the equations in sections, making sure that the internal logic of each section holds up before proceeding to examine the logic by which the sections are combined. It is my understanding that mathematical papers are checked in much the same way, often with different mathematicians checking different parts of the equation. There is then, no problem that is theoretically too large or too complex to be analysed by thought, especially if we allow that the problem may be analysed by the actions of multiple thinkers working together (preferably with lots of healthy argument). Of course, no problem is actually solved by thought, it is merely the case that the solution to the problem is identified by thought so what I am suggesting is that there is no problem that, in virtue of it's complexity, cannot be solved by means which are identified by thought such that thinking is the first step in solving the problem.

There may, of course be problems to which a solution cannot be identified through thinking, for practical reasons or because a solution is logically impossible. This being the case, however, it does not seem to me that there is any reason to believe that any method which does not rely on thought would have a chance of solution. In fact, I have to wonder how one could possibly select a potential non-thought-based solution since it would seem to me that the selection of such a solution would, by definition, be irrational.

Certainly there might be cases where one might reason that doing nothing is the best option (in a situation where any conceivable course of action would tend to worsen the situation for instance) but if the decision to do nothing is based on reasoning then it is still a thought-based solution.

Similarly, there might be circumstances where I might reason that taking a guess is the best strategy (where a risk/reward assessment seems favourable and no more controlled strategy is available). Once again, however it seems that I could only sensibly adopt such an apparently thoughtless solution where reason identified it as the best available solution. Indeed, I think that by definition one either acts on the basis of reason or acts unreasonably.

I suppose, I could trust in some higher power. However, I am not familiar with any religion in which higher powers are generally known to intervene on behalf of individuals who do not make the effort to intervene on their own behalf. The Christian God famously "helps those who help themselves" though, I suspect in light of His guarentee that we should all act according to free will, He would not go even this far. Surely, even a religious individual is bound by reason to use reason if only to come to the best understanding of his deity?


To sum up, until arguments to the contrary are presented, it seems to me that logic suggests that reasoning is, in principle, the method most likely to provide a solution to any problem and even where reasoning has not or cannot provide a solution to a problem, there is no reasonable alternative.

 

[FreeChile]

Throg said:

I don't think this is particularly relevant. It is sufficient to acknowledge that the thread should have a valid argument. That RandFan has not taken the time to set this right throughout the entire forum is clearly a reflection of his innate laziness and low moral character. I trust he is ashamed of himself.

This reflects nothing about personal character. The fact that RandFan acknowledged it to be a “Great question” means that he got close to my intended meaning. It also says that he does not know the answer. And If RandFan himself does not know the answer; it would be mere speculation on anyone else’s part to claim to know it.

Welcome to this world!

 

[RandFan]

This reflects nothing about personal character. The fact that RandFan acknowledged it to be a “Great question” means that he got close to my intended meaning. It also says that he does not know the answer. And If RandFan himself does not know the answer; it would be mere speculation on anyone else’s part to claim to know it.

Welcome to this world!

Why do you think that I don't know the answer? I said: "It seems to me that any discussion of critical thought should be rooted in sound modes of logic. To fail to do so is like exploring skepticism by reading tea leaves." I also said that I had not read the other threads. Which is true.

 

[RandFan]

To sum up, until arguments to the contrary are presented, it seems to me that logic suggests that reasoning is, in principle, the method most likely to provide a solution to any problem and even where reasoning has not or cannot provide a solution to a problem, there is no reasonable alternative.

Great post.

To play devils advocate, the question remains, will/does problem solving by reason really improve the over all state of the human condition due to the fact that solutions to old problems always create new problems?

 

[Throg]

Cool, and I agree that FreeChile has some ideas worth exploring. I just had a difficult time figuring out exactly where he was going.

What is a "tragic state"? Is there a threshold of tragedy that causes a tragic state or would any amount of tragedy constitute a "tragic state"? I take my cue from the Greek tragedy. According to Aristotle tragedy is inevitable catastrophy caused by a tragic flaw (in this instance the flaw would be thinking itself IIUC).

Your list does not fit Aristotle's definition IMO. Is this your understanding or do you see "tragic state" in a different light?

I did indeed have Aristotle's definition in mind, though I do not consider thinking to be the tragic flaw. In each of the cases I put I think the catastrophic consequences are reasonably clear and are the inevitable result of tragic flaws in human character (greed, wrath and and sloth for each of my examples respectively, to grossly over-simplify and add a nice seven sins flavour.) I also felt that my examples were at least suggestive of the arrogance that seems to be the most pervasive flaw in Greek tragic heroes. I intentionally left out non-tragic (in the Aristotlean sense) catastrophes such as earthquakes and disease though I don't think it would not be too difficult to find an aristotlean dimension even in natural disasters.

 

[RandFan]

I did indeed have Aristotle's definition in mind, though I do not consider thinking to be the tragic flaw. In each of the cases I put I think the catastrophic consequences are reasonably clear and are the inevitable result of tragic flaws in human character (greed, wrath and and sloth for each of my examples respectively, to grossly over-simplify and add a nice seven sins flavour.) I also felt that my examples were at least suggestive of the arrogance that seems to be the most pervasive flaw in Greek tragic heroes. I intentionally left out non-tragic (in the Aristotlean sense) catastrophes such as earthquakes and disease though I don't think it would not be too difficult to find an aristotlean dimension even in natural disasters.

Yes I agree. I guess I see tragic when applied to the entire human race implies that the human race is imperiled. Perhaps this is the flaw in my logic. What do you think?

 

[Throg]

Great post.

To play devils advocate, the question remains, will/does problem solving by reason really improve the over all state of the human condition due to the fact that solutions to old problems always create new problems?

As I said in my first post, I think given the increase in length and quality of human life over recorded history, the onus is on your side (as Devil's advocate - classy move by the way) to provide arguments that show the new problems outweigh those provided by the solutions to the old problems. That and we have much better television than our ancient ancestors. : |


By the way, have you read Utopia by Thomas Moore (the book from which the word Utopia is derived)? For those who haven't, the original Utopia is not nearly the perfect place that the word seems to have come to mean, it's just an astoundingly good (and reasonable) place by 16th Century standards. In most respects, we have exceeded the hopes Mr. Moore had for Utopia. That should count in favour of my not-quite-so-vicious spiral.

 

[FreeChile]

Why do you think that I don't know the answer? I said: "It seems to me that any discussion of critical thought should be rooted in sound modes of logic. To fail to do so is like exploring skepticism by reading tea leaves." I also said that I had not read the other threads. Which is true.

But why did you choose to read THIS thread and not another thread? Also, why within the whole thread, did you choose only certain arguments for logical analysis and not others? This is not meant as an attack on the messenger. It is a fundamental question.

 

[Throg]

Yes I agree. I guess I see tragic when applied to the entire human race implies that the human race is imperiled. Perhaps this is the flaw in my logic. What do you think?

I don't think it's a flaw in your logic (I will certainly let you know when I see one as I trust you will do for me) but rather a difference in perspective. My understanding of tragedy in the Aristotlean sense is that it is a very personal thing, as the term tragic hero implies. Thus, the tragedy when a thousand people die as a result of flaws in the human character is the sum of a thousand individual tragedies, of a thousand unique individuals, each as important as you or I, suffering. To be sure, for it to be rightly said that the world is in a tragic state there must be an awful lot of these individual tragedies going on. It is my understanding that there are.

 

[RandFan]

As I said in my first post, I think given the increase in length and quality of human life over recorded history, the onus is on your side (as Devil's advocate - classy move by the way) to provide arguments that show the new problems outweigh those provided by the solutions to the old problems. That and we have much better television than our ancient ancestors. : |

Better porn also. Of course if one takes a relgious view then the explosion of the porn industry is one more proof that the end days are near.

If one takes the view that tragedy simply means stasis (the human condition is static) then one only need prove that the new solutions coupled with new problems do not outweigh the old problems.

I'm at a loss to prove either but I will think about it.

By the way, have you read Utopia by Thomas Moore (the book from which the word Utopia is derived)? For those who haven't, the original Utopia is not nearly the perfect place that the word seems to have come to mean, it's just an astoundingly good (and reasonable) place by 16th Century standards. In most respects, we have exceeded the hopes Mr. Moore had for Utopia. That should count in favour of my not-quite-so-vicious spiral.

Good point. I'm inclined to agree. I would suggest that the fact that humans can swap pimentos for the pits in olives is proof that we are not in the vicious cycle. To counter I would have to offer Brittney Spears as proof that we are.