[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ant colonies are not known for their Beethovens, Bachs or Rembrandts. [/quote]
Man is part of the natural system, we require it to exist. As such, we can never “transcend” it. And since even the solar system is part of and supports our natural system, even on another planet (i.e. the moon) we are still part of the natural system.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I think Africa would have been better off without European intervention. It may not have been as technologically or culturally advanced but it would have been less of a shithole, to be sure.
Bringing law and order (esp from the British) was a true blessing to Africa. When you find savages making potions out of human hearts and proceed to stop that, that’s a good thing. Building railways and bringing in doctors to replace witch doctors is a good thing.
Ever see the end of the movie ‘Roots’? Alex Haley’s character has to sit and listen to a Mandinka priest rattle off the history of the tribe BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WRITE!
Its just too bad that Europeans didn’t stay in Africa. Who knows, it might look like Germany or Ireland today, instead of Hell (Robert Mugabe style).
[/quote]
‘Civilized’ man is just as fucked up an fallible and infinitely more savage. The weapons are just more sophisticated and the violence against others who are different is couched in so-called noble causes such as religion.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
‘Civilized’ man is just as fucked up an fallible and infinitely more savage. The weapons are just more sophisticated and the violence against others who are different is couched in so-called noble causes such as religion.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I suspect that they are hindered by their native language. Farming is a long-term plan and they may be incapable of grasping concepts. They are good at mimicry but don’t know what to do when the well pump breaks.
[/quote]
You seem to be coming back to this point, but I think you’re overstating it. Not to mention the fact that the Shona language, which is the major “native” language spoken in Zimbabwe, does have all the usual verbal tenses.
kuenda: to go
Ndinoenda: I go
Ndakaenda: I went
Ndiri kuenda: I am going
Ndaenda: I was going
Ndichaenda: I will go
enda! Go!
And the Zulu language is even more complex: at least as complex as Latin.
For comparison, consider that neither Japanese nor Chinese has what we would think of as a future tense. It seems that this in itself has not held back the technological development of either culture.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I suspect that they are hindered by their native language. Farming is a long-term plan and they may be incapable of grasping concepts. They are good at mimicry but don’t know what to do when the well pump breaks.
You seem to be coming back to this point, but I think you’re overstating it. Not to mention the fact that the Shona language, which is the major “native” language spoken in Zimbabwe, does have all the usual verbal tenses.
kuenda: to go
Ndinoenda: I go
Ndakaenda: I went
Ndiri kuenda: I am going
Ndaenda: I was going
Ndichaenda: I will go
enda! Go!
And the Zulu language is even more complex: at least as complex as Latin.
For comparison, consider that neither Japanese nor Chinese has what we would think of as a future tense. It seems that this in itself has not held back the technological development of either culture.[/quote]
There is absolutely nothing to the point that HH is making, Varq. Whatever cultural barrier may have existed against farming would have dissapeared as soon as one group took farming and used its advantages to conquer its neighbours. Eurocentric racists, who have little concept of geography and the barriers that lands like Subsaharan Africa and Australia could face in the past for agriculture to fully spread, these people will blame it on lazy Africans with inferior culture. It would be like me saying that North Europe only entered civilisation in the last millenium because of the superior intellect of Greco-Roman haplogroups that brought writing, education and military discipline to them.
HH is just a troll…and a disingenous one at that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.[/quote]
Varq,
Civilization is far more than a marshalling of material resources. This is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for civilization, which invariably involves transcendent values, goals & endeavors that are nowhere in evidence in “nature.”
My point was this: no doubt we are part of the natural world, the “web of life,” etc. We cannot exist apart from the natural world. No doubt. But this does not mean that we are determined by nature to live lives that are “nasty, short & brutish”; nor does it mean that we are enslaved to our worst, most selfish impulses within. We can - as communities and individuals - apprehend and act in accordance with a nobility that transcends the mere “getting and spending” that seems to, in part, determine the course of our lives.
The best of Western Civilization has always found its deepest and most enduring in an invincible surmise: that there is some greatness in us that no material and natural circumstances - no matter how edifying and wonderful - can explain. Some light within that no darkness - no matter how horrifying - can extinguish.
In other words (must I say this?), we are more than ants.
In other words, Varq, what I’m saying is: we have a soul.
Probably we’ll never get to the bottom of this. But that’s my 2 cents.
Cheers, ~katz
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ant colonies are not known for their Beethovens, Bachs or Rembrandts. [/quote]
How the fuck do you know, do you speak to ants? Get help dude.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.[/quote]
Whoa, you’re talking to ants too! Fucking nuts running around!
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.
Varq,
Civilization is far more than a marshalling of material resources. This is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for civilization, which invariably involves transcendent values, goals & endeavors that are nowhere in evidence in “nature.”
My point was this: no doubt we are part of the natural world, the “web of life,” etc. We cannot exist apart from the natural world. No doubt. But this does not mean that we are determined by nature to live lives that are “nasty, short & brutish”; nor does it mean that we are enslaved to our worst, most selfish impulses within. We can - as communities and individuals - apprehend and act in accordance with a nobility that transcends the mere “getting and spending” that seems to, in part, determine the course of our lives.
The best of Western Civilization has always found its deepest and most enduring in an invincible surmise: that there is some greatness in us that no material and natural circumstances - no matter how edifying and wonderful - can explain. Some light within that no darkness - no matter how horrifying - can extinguish.
In other words (must I say this?), we are more than ants.
In other words, Varq, what I’m saying is: we have a soul.
Probably we’ll never get to the bottom of this. But that’s my 2 cents.
Cheers, ~katz
[/quote]
Where in nature does it say our lives have to be “nasty, short, and brutish”? You know what, my dog isn’t enslaved by his selfish impulses. Sure they are a big part of his world, but if I tell him no, he doesn’t fucking do it. He wants to, he wishes he could, every fiber of his instincts tell him too, but guess what, I said no so he doesn’t fucking do it. So does that mean my dog also transcends nature? And before you say, I told him not to so it doesnt count, I dont have to tell him not to steal my eggs when I am taking a pee, and where did you learn your “noble” values. Someone else taught them too you and you select the ones that fit in your worldview, and go with your personality which is determined by genetics and upbringing. What I am saying is that we aren’t some special, super kickass son of god, we are a very intelligent animal, with thumbs and fingers. Intelligent doesn’t even mean anything without thumb and fingers, It would just be a prison for you(not a person without hands, but like a whale or dolphin or something if it was at near, equal or greater intelligence than humans).
^^ agreed: you are an opposable-thumbed bit of fecal matter.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.
Varq,
Civilization is far more than a marshalling of material resources. This is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for civilization, which invariably involves transcendent values, goals & endeavors that are nowhere in evidence in “nature.”
My point was this: no doubt we are part of the natural world, the “web of life,” etc. We cannot exist apart from the natural world. No doubt. But this does not mean that we are determined by nature to live lives that are “nasty, short & brutish”; nor does it mean that we are enslaved to our worst, most selfish impulses within. We can - as communities and individuals - apprehend and act in accordance with a nobility that transcends the mere “getting and spending” that seems to, in part, determine the course of our lives.
The best of Western Civilization has always found its deepest and most enduring in an invincible surmise: that there is some greatness in us that no material and natural circumstances - no matter how edifying and wonderful - can explain. Some light within that no darkness - no matter how horrifying - can extinguish.
In other words (must I say this?), we are more than ants.
In other words, Varq, what I’m saying is: we have a soul.
Probably we’ll never get to the bottom of this. But that’s my 2 cents.
Cheers, ~katz [/quote]
Agreed. If we were to follow what “nature” programmed us to do, we’ll be running around plundering, raping and exterminating everyone that doesn’t look like us or prays to the same God. “Transcends” may not be the best word to use, but we certainly came a long way from there.
[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.
Varq,
Civilization is far more than a marshalling of material resources. This is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for civilization, which invariably involves transcendent values, goals & endeavors that are nowhere in evidence in “nature.”
My point was this: no doubt we are part of the natural world, the “web of life,” etc. We cannot exist apart from the natural world. No doubt. But this does not mean that we are determined by nature to live lives that are “nasty, short & brutish”; nor does it mean that we are enslaved to our worst, most selfish impulses within. We can - as communities and individuals - apprehend and act in accordance with a nobility that transcends the mere “getting and spending” that seems to, in part, determine the course of our lives.
The best of Western Civilization has always found its deepest and most enduring in an invincible surmise: that there is some greatness in us that no material and natural circumstances - no matter how edifying and wonderful - can explain. Some light within that no darkness - no matter how horrifying - can extinguish.
In other words (must I say this?), we are more than ants.
In other words, Varq, what I’m saying is: we have a soul.
Probably we’ll never get to the bottom of this. But that’s my 2 cents.
Cheers, ~katz
Agreed. If we were to follow what “nature” programmed us to do, we’ll be running around plundering, raping and exterminating everyone that doesn’t look like us or prays to the same God. “Transcends” may not be the best word to use, but we certainly came a long way from there.[/quote]
We have?
Plundering, raping and exterminating was never cool in the own group and them men who did that do other groups always enjoyed a good reputation.
I do not know what has changed.
In some societies people may be pretty peaceful, but they already have everything they could get violent about.
Anyway, since it is in our nature to develop culture there is no conflict.
[quote]orion wrote:
We have?
Plundering, raping and exterminating was never cool in the own group and them men who did that do other groups always enjoyed a good reputation.
I do not know what has changed.
In some societies people may be pretty peaceful, but they already have everything they could get violent about. [/quote]
I’ll disagree with that. As a species, we came up with very sophisticated ways to ensure that the particular instinct you’re referring to be quenched. It’s kinda weird making the case on a site called Testosterone Nation, but bear with me. Religion, laws, jails, courts have all made sure to keep that behavior to a minimum. Heck, we even have international law since a few decades. There are bugs in the system, and the powerful still tries to get away with as much as he/she can, but the heart of the majority is in the right place.
At least, that’s what the Humanist in me likes to believe.
“Religion, laws, jails, courts have all made sure to keep that behavior to a minimum.”
Yes.
While this is true in societies, we still fight and kill to prove which religions, laws and belief systems are the best.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
“Religion, laws, jails, courts have all made sure to keep that behavior to a minimum.”
Yes.
While this is true in societies, we still fight and kill to prove which religions, laws and belief systems are the best.
[/quote]
Yes.
While this is true in governments, there are still a lot of people arguing that it is not the way to go. If anything, that is the central point argued on this board.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.[/quote]
I agree with you Varq.
I find it ironic though,that even while we pat ourselves on the back and marvel at the ‘accomplishments’ and our mastery of our environment,we are on the verge of food rioting in many areas of the planet.
So even with our ‘natural’ endowments,we struggle to fulfill our potential with any amount of success.
The desire to look backwards and crow about what we have accomplished,rather than looking forward and being humbled by how much more we could accomplish,is to me,a sign of the hubris of our species.And I feel,probably what will always hold back our kind and lead to our extinction at some point.
We have an apparently innate belief in our superiority,our uniqueness within the natural world.The intellectual schemes we adopt,wether it’s the differentiation by ascribing ourselves ‘souls’,‘spirituality’,or any other method has no grounding in any observable or quantifiable evidence.
It’s just another manifestation of our arrogance.
We’re different.We’re special.We couldn’t just be a product of nature.It’s all in our hands.We have been given the keys to the kingdom.
Or any other number of fairy tales we tell ourselves to pump up our claims to superiority and manifest destiny.Not to mention that those same ideas help us sleep better at night.
I don’t know wether we are superior,or have been blessed by a superior being.All I see is that we are more like a plague.We’ll consume till there is nothing left,with no regard for whatever damage we do to the planet or each other.
It’s our nature.
If you are not unique what are you? Are you a clone, a drone or whatever? Are you not capable of seeing what is and what should/could be?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Katz, you’re drifting away from your original point. Did what Beethoven, Bach or Rembrandt did in their lifetimes represent a transcending of nature, or a realization of their natural potential?
You believe that man’s civilization allows him to transcend the natural world. I believe the opposite. I believe that man is a part of the natural world, whose natural endowments (large brain, opposable thumb, complex language) have permitted him to manipulate natural resources, control the food supply, and order his society into densely packed cities.
In other words, civilization is the logical (and, I daresay, natural) conclusion for an animal of this kind.
Ants also have civilization, and while their civilization does not produce outstanding individuals, it does solve the problems of food, reproduction, shelter, growth and defense a lot more efficiently than any human civilization ever has.
I agree with you Varq.
I find it ironic though,that even while we pat ourselves on the back and marvel at the ‘accomplishments’ and our mastery of our environment,we are on the verge of food rioting in many areas of the planet.
So even with our ‘natural’ endowments,we struggle to fulfill our potential with any amount of success.
The desire to look backwards and crow about what we have accomplished,rather than looking forward and being humbled by how much more we could accomplish,is to me,a sign of the hubris of our species.And I feel,probably what will always hold back our kind and lead to our extinction at some point.
We have an apparently innate belief in our superiority,our uniqueness within the natural world.The intellectual schemes we adopt,wether it’s the differentiation by ascribing ourselves ‘souls’,‘spirituality’,or any other method has no grounding in any observable or quantifiable evidence.
It’s just another manifestation of our arrogance.
We’re different.We’re special.We couldn’t just be a product of nature.It’s all in our hands.We have been given the keys to the kingdom.
Or any other number of fairy tales we tell ourselves to pump up our claims to superiority and manifest destiny.Not to mention that those same ideas help us sleep better at night.
I don’t know wether we are superior,or have been blessed by a superior being.All I see is that we are more like a plague.We’ll consume till there is nothing left,with no regard for whatever damage we do to the planet or each other.
It’s our nature.
[/quote]
Great post. Too many people want to rest on their accomplishments and stop progress.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
All I see is that we are more like a plague.We’ll consume till there is nothing left,with no regard for whatever damage we do to the planet or each other.
It’s our nature.
[/quote]
Damn,
Maybe Agent Smith was correct.