What is the worst idea in philosophy?

[Mercutio]

Those, "who can be the maddest" competitions never end well.

Are you referring to Hamlet or to this thread?

Check your PM box, Throg.

 

[Tricky]

Those, "who can be the maddest" competitions never end well.

Maybe not, but I will pit our own Pillory against all comers.

 

[Kumar]

What do you consider to be the most dangerous or worst idea in philosophy/theology?

You may have to first define, most dangerous or worst idea in philosophy/theology, in what sense-- natural, social, human?

]I think one is "original sin". The idea that man is fatally flawed by things outside his control, Adam and Eve's behavior that tainted mankind forever, unless you obey a church's teachings you are hopeless etc., has to be one of the worst ideas ever.


Nietzsche's "superman" is not far behind as the worst idea. Totally unrealistic and basically inspires anyone stronger to act amorally. The Nazis loved it.

Thomas Hobbes inspired the US Constitution. His idea that people will act evilly unless restrained by checks and balances and a community is not that nice of an idea. Even though it's probably true.

The Hindu idea of "castes" has condemned hundreds of millions of people to do exactly what their fathers did for a living, and not to marry anyone outside their category. This is an example of a bad idea acted on and turned into an institution.

The all time worst idea, or set of ideas, is that mankind cannot fend for itself, and that the world is governed by gods/forces that you must sacrifice to. All scientific inquiry pretty much stops at that point. Most cultures never even had any science and that was one reason.

The criteria for 'worst' idea is how much people have acted on it and some harm has come out of it. Or nonsense/confusion/chaos has come out of it.

Sometimes, we, our vested interests, our ignorances etc. can convert real senses into non-senses.

 

[jmercer]

jmercer: While I certainly have no qualms whatsoever with finding the Soviet regime oppressive, I could disagree with you exactly how communistic it really was, at least from a Marxist-communistic point of view. It would take me days and days to write why this could be so, but if you can find the following book Nomenclature by Michael Voslensky (NB: This is the Norwegian spelling of his name. Russian names sometimes have different spellings in Norwegian and English. "Gorbatsjov" vs. "Gorbatchev"(?) is one example.) If he is correct, and to at least some extent I believe he is, then it's not really correct to have called the Soviet regime "communistic". It was written in the early 80s, so I have no idea if it's available at all today.

To whetten your curiosity, here will be some of the claims he makes:
* The Marxistic theory predicts that the working class will make a proletaric dictatorship which will fade over to a truly classless society. What happened in Russia was that Lenin with his October Revolution took away power from the proletariat, and instead established the ruling class of bureaucracy, of which he or the rest had no intention to end.
* That the principle of the Nomenclature hierarchy was established during Lenin, and that the principle essentially remained unchanged (of course, the actual people working in these positions changed very radically...) when Stalin came to power. Thus, Stalin and his associates merely prolonged the work of Lenin, instead of opposing it, as is what most people reckon.
* How "humane" Lenin apparently was... And it's not a positive picture.

Voslensky was himself a Nomenclaturist for a big part of his life, and had access to plenty of documents that he refers to. As I said, he's probably not right about all, but if you're interested in the Soviet era, then you might want to at least take a look at his perspective. And if you're not, well, I won't force you to, of course.

Hey, Hawk One - sorry it took so long to get back to this thread and reply. There have been other threads I've been involved in, and I just couldn't get to all of them, fascinating (and fun) as this one is!

Actually, my comment was specific to the concept of communism rather than the execution. I'm going to look at tyhe book you referenced - I find that entire era fascinating!

The closest thing to 'real' communism that I know if is probably China. It certainly executed (pardon the pun) the fundamental concepts more faithfully than the USSR ever did.

However, I still stand by my statement - the fundamental basis for the idea of communism is flawed because it ignores human nature... and any form of government which does that must either adapt or fail. Case in point, the changes going on over in China today... a big difference from the days of Mao, indeed, when China reflected a much "purer" form of communism. (And was still failing from stagnancy, I might add!)

Nice info, thanks for replying... and again, my apologies for my tardy response.

 

[Kaylee]

I'm not well versed in philosophy so apologies in advance if I misunderstood anything I learned through the google search engine.


While I find the materialist philosophy appealing in many ways, wouldn't dualism do a better job in explaining complex group behavior in ants and birds (flying in flock formation, migration, etc.)?

 

[Mercutio]

While I find the materialist philosophy appealing in many ways, wouldn't dualism do a better job in explaining complex group behavior in ants and birds (flying in flock formation, migration, etc.)?

Before I would give a quick "no" or a slightly longer "only for Rupert Sheldrake", could I ask your reason for suggesting this? What advantage does dualism give in explanations of such behavior?

 

[gnome]

As I suggested elsewhere or, was that in the other thread, when you attempt to speak of things which emanate from a different realm, logic or, the lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. I can't prove to you that it exists, because it does not originate from this world. I have given you the most logical account for it as I know how. Sorry, if it's not good enough.

Whether something comes from this world is irrelevant... if you make a testable claim that it has any influence on this world, expect to be required to provide evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

Whether something comes from this world is irrelevant... if you make a testable claim that it has any influence on this world, expect to be required to provide evidence.

So, can you explain the origin of the Big Bang? Yet we have the evidence right before us, everywhere we look.

 

[RussDill]

BDZ!

Good call. The idea that humans are predators is a fallacy, we have sharp teeth ready to rend flesh and great mighty claws for tearing up that flesh We are equpped just like other predators.

Taphonomy, the study of old bones, shows that our ancient ancestors were most like scavengers who smashed bones for the marrow and harvested the hides and sinews after the real predators had killed and eaten thier share of the kill.

man the mighty fruit and berry eater who kills very small animals (just like chimps) and harvests the remanis of other kills after the jackals have done with them.

I disagree, I think that man was all things. If the environment gave him an advantage as a scavenger, he was a scavenger. A gatherer, a gatherer. You only need to look to the aborigonies of australia to see the advanced hunting skills of ancient man.

 

[RussDill]

That still doesn't tell us about the life which was experienced, because John's not there to tell us about it. Does this tell you that John is nothing more than just his body? No, in fact it doesn't. Of what dimension does the experience of John reside then? The closest we could come to that would be to ask where John goes when he sleeps or, let's say he's in a coma? He's obviously not available to us at that time. In fact he must be in a similar state represented by death. So, where has John gone? Well, come to find out John is alive and well and fully participating in this other reality known as the dream state ... a reality which (without a doubt), is wholly experiential unto itself. Doesn't that sound just the least bit strange? By the way, where do computers go when they "sleep?"

John will always exist. But just as john does not exist at alpha centari, he also does not exist in the year 2538 or the year 1853. His existence is mearly limited to a certain space, and a certain time. John will always exist in the year 1999.

 

[Throg]

John will always exist. But just as john does not exist at alpha centari, he also does not exist in the year 2538 or the year 1853. His existence is mearly limited to a certain space, and a certain time. John will always exist in the year 1999.

Russ, you baffled me. Could you expand? Not you personally, you understand, your statement.

 

[RussDill]

Russ, you baffled me. Could you expand? Not you personally, you understand, your statement.

Just that when someone says you die, or cease to exist, all they are really saying is that you cease to exist beyond a certain point in time. Just like before you were born, you did not exist. Nothing and no one can take away your existence between your birth and death, you will always exist at those times and places between your birth and death.

 

[Throg]

Just that when someone says you die, or cease to exist, all they are really saying is that you cease to exist beyond a certain point in time. Just like before you were born, you did not exist. Nothing and no one can take away your existence between your birth and death, you will always exist at those times and places between your birth and death.

Got you. Any particular reason you chose the year 1999 for John, or was it just a random number?

 

[RussDill]

Got you. Any particular reason you chose the year 1999 for John, or was it just a random number?

Just a random number.

 

[gnome]

So, can you explain the origin of the Big Bang? Yet we have the evidence right before us, everywhere we look.

I haven't made any claims about the origin of the Big Bang. But if I did, I would make sure I had evidence (or I would label my statement purely speculative)

 

[Kaylee]

posted by Shera
"While I find the materialist philosophy appealing in many ways, wouldn't dualism do a better job in explaining complex group behavior in ants and birds (flying in flock formation, migration, etc.)?"

Before I would give a quick "no" or a slightly longer "only for Rupert Sheldrake", could I ask your reason for suggesting this? What advantage does dualism give in explanations of such behavior?

Yes, my examples do make it very obvious that I am guilty of reading several of Rupert Sheldrake's books. ( Specifically I've read these 4: The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance & the Habits of Nature, Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals, and The Sense of Being Stared At )

I found Sheldrake's ideas about morphic fields and group consciousness (similar to Carl Jung's idea of collective unconsciousness I suppose) interesting, and I also found some of his descriptions of earlier experiments done by other scientists many years ago persuasive. For example, Sheldrake described an experiment done by a scientist that partially destroyed an ant's nest and then put a steel divider in the middle. Per the scientist's report, the ants succeeded in rebuilding the nest successfully with the two halves perfectly matched up each other despite the divider.

[Start: Read if you like, but it's not necessary]

I'm not done making up my mind about Sheldrake however. I come across the following negatives:

* I found some of his indexing to be very sloppy ( it's not unusual for him to provide a book as a reference for a quote without a page number, etc. ) This may be a trite point but it really irks me. If he did the research why not make it easy for someone to verify what he did?

* I was left with the impression that morphogenetic fields (which he had explained that he modeled his ideas about morphic fields on) was a well established and accepted theory in biology developed in the 1920s but could not find any information on the net the other week that did not reference him. I admit that I returned his books and no longer had his references available to follow through on, but still, if morphogenetic fields are such an well established idea I think I should have been able to find more information about it on the net regardless.

* I've also read some of the JREF's threads on Sheldrake and was able to follow the explanation on why his telephone telepathy experiments were poorly designed and I agree.

Despite these negatives, I still find many of his ideas compelling and am not yet ready to dismiss his claimed results in some of his staring and animal telepathy experiments. I still have more reading to do before I dismiss everything he has to say.

[End: Read if you like, but it's not necessary]

If Sheldrake's ideas about morphic fields and groups consciousness are correct, would that idea fit in better with Cartesian dualism or materialism? After thinking about it some more today, now I am leaning towards thinking it would fit in comfortably within materialism. All that materialism demands is that everything be reduced to a physical cause, correct?

 

[Throg]

If Sheldrake's ideas about morphic fields and groups consciousness are correct, would that idea fit in better with Cartesian dualism or materialism? After thinking about it some more today, now I am leaning towards thinking it would fit in comfortably within materialism. All that materialism demands is that everything be reduced to a physical cause, correct? [/B]

One could come up with a logically coherent morphogenetic/morphic field theory which was materialistic but coming up with one which was a fit logically with the empirically derived understanding of the real world in which we live is another matter.

Think of it this way, Spider-man is essentially a myth set in a world with fits with a materialistic philosophy (in the films anyway, it's a long time since I read the comics) and even seems to follow a scientific model; it is a logically coherent world in that it sticks to it's own rules and it is apparently a materialistic world in that there is nothing to suggest anything beyond the material. However, many of the rules on which Spider-man depends just do not apply in our world and much of what happens in Spider-man's world would violate known rules in our world.

I point this out only to illustrate the fact that what is possible within a materialist philosophy is not the same thing as what is possible within a materialist philophy attached to the real world.


On the subject of arthropods, does Sheldrake's book indicate what sort of measurements were taken in determining that the two halves of the ants' nest matched perfectly? Furthermore were any measures taken to account for the fact that ants' primary sense is something akin to smell rather than sight?

 

[Mercutio]

I found Sheldrake's ideas about morphic fields and group consciousness (similar to Carl Jung's idea of collective unconsciousness I suppose) interesting, and I also found some of his descriptions of earlier experiments done by other scientists many years ago persuasive. For example, Sheldrake described an experiment done by a scientist that partially destroyed an ant's nest and then put a steel divider in the middle. Per the scientist's report, the ants succeeded in rebuilding the nest successfully with the two halves perfectly matched up each other despite the divider.

Just a quick response now--more later. You are quite astute to notice that the mainstream literature does not share Sheldrake's views (nor Jung's, for that matter). I think you are quite correct in assigning Sheldrake a dualistic underpinning, although I do not think that work as shoddy as his could be said to actually "support" dualism. But what I really wanted to point out, before I forgot to, was that Sheldrake appears to be shunned by the mainstream of the parapsychological researchers as well. I am reviewing a couple of parapsychology textbooks, and it amused me to see a chapter on the sense of being stared at, with a complete history of research...without a single reference to Sheldrake. So...although he calls it one of his experiments that could change the world, he neglects to add that it not a new one...and while he does a great public-relations job (enough to get you and me to know his name when the previous researchers are unknown to us), his work is less valued by actual scientists--whether in biology, psychology, or parapsychology.

 

[Kaylee]

One could come up with a logically coherent morphogenetic/morphic field theory which was materialistic but coming up with one which was a fit logically with the empirically derived understanding of the real world in which we live is another matter.


{Spiderman example cut for space}


I point this out only to illustrate the fact that what is possible within a materialist philosophy is not the same thing as what is possible within a materialist philophy attached to the real world.

Thanks, the Spiderman example was great! Of course, now I still need to understand why Sheldrake's theory does not fit in with the real world... Any help in this area (suggested readings perhaps?) would be greatly appreciated...

On the subject of arthropods, does Sheldrake's book indicate what sort of measurements were taken in determining that the two halves of the ants' nest matched perfectly? Furthermore were any measures taken to account for the fact that ants' primary sense is something akin to smell rather than sight?

I had to return the Sheldrake's books unfortunately. If I recall correctly he did not go into the measurements (his books are intended for the general public after all), but the references he cited may have mentioned it. The book did include a photograph which appeared to back up the conclusion , of course that doesn't answer the question...
{Shrug}...

The large steel divider was suppose to completely block the ants known senses. I don't have enough of a background in this area to know if that is correct.

Edited to fix grammar and add clarity.

 

[Kaylee]

Just a quick response now--more later.

I look forward to it!

But what I really wanted to point out, before I forgot to, was that Sheldrake appears to be shunned by the mainstream of the parapsychological researchers as well. I am reviewing a couple of parapsychology textbooks, and it amused me to see a chapter on the sense of being stared at, with a complete history of research...without a single reference to Sheldrake. So...although he calls it one of his experiments that could change the world, he neglects to add that it not a new one...and while he does a great public-relations job (enough to get you and me to know his name when the previous researchers are unknown to us), his work is less valued by actual scientists--whether in biology, psychology, or parapsychology.

I seem to recall that Sheldrake mentioned 2 or 3 researchers in the "staring" phenomena from around the early 1900s. But it sounds like the textbooks you are reviewing are saying there were many more researchers than that in this area?

Its's verrrry, verrrry interesting that he's not even valued among other parapsychologists. Verrrry interesting. If he's not citing a lot of people's work, I guess that would do it!

I'm also wondering, in his more recent books and also on his website (www.sheldrake.org) he is strongly encouraging laypeople to get directly involved with scientific research. Could this be a contributing factor to other scientists ignoring him?