Were we better off in a state of nature?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • coberst
    FFR Player
    • May 2004
    • 256

    #1

    Were we better off in a state of nature?

    Were we better off in a state of nature?

    How credible was the concept of the Noble Savage?

    The thing is that society is constantly changing. How can we create a stable society within such a dynamic world culture? We need an ideal as a North Star. An ideal does not depend upon what is or what was but upon what we want or what we need—hopefully that are similar.

    I think that Socrates may very well be the first person to recognize what we need. Socrates recognized that the basic need was for wo/men to awaken their critical faculties. Socrates was perhaps the first to recognize that humans are too easily delighted by the praise of their fellows and that this sought after social recognition prevented their free and enlighten action. Humans need to share in a shared social fiction. The anxiety of self-discovery is a constant source of internal conflict for humans.

    It appears that human play forms “may even outwit human adaptation itself”. The created fiction becomes more real than reality itself. New humans enter this world and immediately begin the process of survival which becomes “a struggle with the ideas one has inherited”. This fiction reality destroys our rational adaptive process which can react to the real world; we are too busy reacting to our fictional play.

    Is it appropriate to say that the Amish might be considered to be the modern Noble Savage?

    Is it possible that we could study the Amish as a means for creating a better society?
  • Kilroy_x
    Little Chief Hare
    • Mar 2005
    • 783

    #2
    Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

    The survival of the individual human being is largely based on their ability to interact with other human beings. This goes back to almost the earliest hominids, who would have been incapable of surviving without the ability to collectively hunt and defend themselves. The Noble Savage, in the Rousseau-like sense of natural, primitive self-sufficient individuals, is a myth.

    Your North Star might look something like the critical method; the method born first in ancient Greece, and then not so much reinvented but rediscovered during the renaissance. By this method human beings create tentative solutions to problems which are then tested and adopted, at least until something better comes along.

    You make a large mistake however. You seem to think that human beings have slipped into some shared social fiction. This ignores obvious epistemological difficulties, as well as the evolutionary course of our species. Human beings will always share in various levels of fiction. Whether they come to share in these from the praise of others or from critical evaluation is a central concern, but the manner in which we reason will always be abstract; an approximation. By way of the guiding light of the Critical method we may have the highest expectation that our fictions will most closely approximate reality, but that is the best we can hope for.

    Comment

    • coberst
      FFR Player
      • May 2004
      • 256

      #3
      Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

      Perhaps we might learn something imporatnt if we studied the Amish style of living.

      Comment

      • ShAiOnEi
        FFR Player
        • May 2007
        • 1110

        #4
        Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

        Human race will never live completely correct.
        I love my son Auron

        Epic thread killer

        Comment

        • Kilroy_x
          Little Chief Hare
          • Mar 2005
          • 783

          #5
          Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

          Originally posted by coberst
          Perhaps we might learn something imporatnt if we studied the Amish style of living.
          If you consider religious fundamentalism and the technical aspects of communal agrarian lifestyles important, maybe. Good job responding to my post, btw.

          Comment

          • coberst
            FFR Player
            • May 2004
            • 256

            #6
            Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

            Bill Moyer has a video wherein he discusses the book “Amish Grace” that you might find to be very interesting regarding the Amish response to their tragedy. Compare that Amish response to their tragedy and the response of America to our 9/11 tragedy.

            Comment

            • devonin
              Very Grave Indeed
              Event Staff
              FFR Simfile Author
              • Apr 2004
              • 10120

              #7
              Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

              Originally posted by Kilroy_x
              If you consider religious fundamentalism and the technical aspects of communal agrarian lifestyles important, maybe. Good job responding to my post, btw.
              Haven't you learned yet that Coberst isn't actually interested in discussion or debate? He is interested solely in preaching to an audience that he feels is ignorant and in need of his education.

              Comment

              • lord_carbo
                FFR Player
                • Dec 2004
                • 6222

                #8
                Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                To be honest I just skip over coberst's posts and read Kilroy's responses.
                last.fm

                Comment

                • devonin
                  Very Grave Indeed
                  Event Staff
                  FFR Simfile Author
                  • Apr 2004
                  • 10120

                  #9
                  Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                  On another forum where the entire philosophy section is cross-posted threads by Coberst, I think he's actually put me on some sort of ignore, or else he does a damn good job of ignoring every question, issue and request for clarification I post.

                  Given the attitude he presents in his posts about his motives, he's either blind, or a total hypocrite.

                  Comment

                  • Master_of_the_Faster
                    FFR Player
                    • Aug 2006
                    • 255

                    #10
                    Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                    Originally posted by devonin
                    On another forum where the entire philosophy section is cross-posted threads by Coberst, I think he's actually put me on some sort of ignore, or else he does a damn good job of ignoring every question, issue and request for clarification I post.

                    Given the attitude he presents in his posts about his motives, he's either blind, or a total hypocrite.
                    I think Coberst needs to read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.

                    Edit:
                    Originally posted by lord_carbo
                    To be honest I just skip over coberst's posts and read Kilroy's responses.
                    This is probably because Kilroy has actually shown decent points of view unlike Coberst who had not really brought up an argument at times.
                    Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 10-7-2007, 05:47 PM.

                    Comment

                    • lord_carbo
                      FFR Player
                      • Dec 2004
                      • 6222

                      #11
                      Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                      Originally posted by Master_of_the_Faster
                      This is probably because Kilroy has actually shown decent points of view unlike Coberst who had not really brought up an argument at times.
                      Wow, thanks, I never realized that myself!
                      last.fm

                      Comment

                      • coberst
                        FFR Player
                        • May 2004
                        • 256

                        #12
                        Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                        All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature. All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct. Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior.

                        Comment

                        • Kilroy_x
                          Little Chief Hare
                          • Mar 2005
                          • 783

                          #13
                          Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                          Originally posted by coberst
                          All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature.
                          This statement is either false or meaningless.

                          All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct.
                          This statement is false.

                          Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior.
                          Given the falsity of the previous two statements this one is false as well.

                          Comment

                          • Master_of_the_Faster
                            FFR Player
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 255

                            #14
                            Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                            Originally posted by coberst
                            All animals, except humans, live in a total state of nature.
                            What exactly do you mean by "total state of nature"? Well if you are saying that monkeys can't shoot laser beams at us, I can understand that other animals don't exactly create the magnificent technology that humans use. However, saying that an animal is "dumb" or "stupid" is a misconception. Animals do communicate effectively with motions and perhaps speech. The thing that sets us off from other animals is the fact that we can read and write. Even these very qualities that are distinct to us humans, may somehow become incorporated to a larger variety of animals through possible natural evolution or science.[/QUOTE]

                            Originally posted by coberst
                            All animals, except humans, are guided totally by instinct.
                            Have you ever heard of eating, drinking, sleeping, and breathing? I do all of these things out of pure instinct. The lust for life, liberty and property are also some human instincts.

                            Originally posted by coberst
                            Civilization is a mark of this transition from instinct to ego domination of behavior.
                            Just as Kilroy said, this statement would also be false.
                            Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 10-8-2007, 01:53 PM.

                            Comment

                            • Maid
                              FFR Player
                              • Nov 2006
                              • 643

                              #15
                              Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                              Everything is nature, just because humans went a step ahead, doesn't mean it is not nature. If we wipe out the earth with bombs, that is also part of nature. Nature doesn't care, it just goes on.
                              怒りの剣も嘆きの傷も 跡形もなく溶けて消えて散って逝っててああー

                              Comment

                              Working...