History Has No Meaning.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 7:45pm

I believe that global history has no meaning.

History is not progress or decline but instead remains recurring gains and losses.

If you believe that “humans” are animals there can be no such thing as the history of humanity but instead only the lives of particular men.

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 8:06pm

What consciousness would that be?

The world doesn’t need saving.

There is nothing to gain or lose except for ourselves.

davids04 · December 9, 2007, 8:25pm

Am I reading this post correctly, that history, global or any other, has no meaning?.

I think it’s a ridiculous notion that history has no meaning. How else could we plan and organize our lives if history had no meaning and if we didn’t reflect on it.

Don’t you know the saying, those that don’t know the meaning of history tend to repeat its mistakes. We evolve and progress because of history.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 8:37pm

Animals have consciousness too.

Why are so called “humans” special or privileged?

Joker · December 9, 2007, 8:40pm

Yes you are reading this thread correctly.

Futile dreaming.

Several thousand years of supported arts and humanities have only produced the same repeated mistakes over and over again.

I don’t see the relevance of this post.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 8:41pm

If “humans” are not special, unique or privileged that would mean that our entire existence is not either.

Therefore it changes nothing and history still remains meaningless.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 9:27pm

What are historical facts?

Joker · December 9, 2007, 9:33pm

What do we utilize historical facts for?

Joker · December 9, 2007, 9:49pm

So in otherwords the fictitious meaning of history is a constructed interface that regulates our dream lands from becoming nightmares by that of recording pass disasters, right?

This doesn’t tell me why history has any meaning at all beyond the dreamer doing the dreaming.

Joker · December 9, 2007, 10:15pm

Your not understanding me. (Shrugs)

Mucius_Scevola · December 9, 2007, 10:25pm

I don’t get you.

You mean the word ‘history’ has no specific meaning ?

You mean the study of history is meaningless ?

You mean history as a composite of historical facts does not exhibit any structure or internal law ?

You mean that history as a whole does not aim toward a recognizable ultimate aim ?

What would you say to an argument that proposes the study of history as a way to a better understanding of the present ?

Joker · December 9, 2007, 10:35pm

Pretty much.

Such as?

davids04 · December 9, 2007, 10:46pm

Several thousand years of supported arts and humanities have only produced the same repeated mistakes over and over again.

This is a rash and untrue statement. Give us an example. It’s like saying history repeats itself. Impossible, because circumstances and situations are always changing. There is always a new mix.

anon · December 10, 2007, 2:24pm

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Joker · December 10, 2007, 5:35pm

History always does repeat itself.

Men in every new generation still remain a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive.

Nothing ever changes.

In every generation there are only people driven by conflicting needs and illusions, and are subject to every kind of infirmity of will and judgement.

Science and philosophy never changes the world.

They only add new twists and turns to the normal madness of the world.

Science enables humans to satisfy their needs. It does nothing to change them.

They are no different today from what they have always been.

There exists a enlargement of knowing but not in ethics.

Joker · December 10, 2007, 5:36pm

anon:

Joker:

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Constructing purpose for the species is a archaic extension of religion that has refused to die throughout the ages.

anon · December 10, 2007, 5:41pm

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Constructing purpose for the species is a archaic extension of religion that has refused to die throughout the ages.

What about constructing purpose for the individual?

Joker · December 10, 2007, 5:45pm

anon:

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Constructing purpose for the species is a archaic extension of religion that has refused to die throughout the ages.

What about constructing purpose for the individual?

Another illusion.

( Come look at my “selfhood as a delusion” thread.)

( Is going to make some new posts there next.)

anon · December 10, 2007, 5:58pm

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Constructing purpose for the species is a archaic extension of religion that has refused to die throughout the ages.

What about constructing purpose for the individual?

Another illusion.

( Come look at my “selfhood as a delusion” thread.)

( Is going to make some new posts there next.)

Ok, yet you said:

I’m pointing out that though you see society as a disparate yet conventionally associated bundle of elements, you don’t seem to see ‘individuals’ in the same way. Who are these ‘particular men’, and why are they more important than societies or cultures? Neither individual men nor cultures can be deemed real in the ultimate analysis, which isn’t to say that either one is meaningless.

Joker · December 10, 2007, 6:13pm

anon:

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

anon:

Joker:

The idea of “humanity” taking charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose to the species.

I understand what you are saying here. But conceiving of singularity and purpose in a species is just as relevant or irrelevant as conceiving of singularity and purpose in the individual - it is an illusory construct which is nonetheless useful in terms of living in and making sense of a conventional world. The idea of a ‘group purpose’ or ‘group consciousness’ is easily discovered to be a conceptual fabrication, but so is supposedly ‘individual’ consciousness or purpose. When we look closely at what we think of as a coherent self we discover that we can’t find the simplicity and singularity we think we will find. Somehow seeing through these illusions doesn’t make them go away - it just makes us see them in a new light. We don’t need to accept them, but we also don’t need to reject them. Anyway, the world will continue to function the way it does whether or not we believe in a coherent ‘humanity’. ‘Humanity’ will still display patterns of behavior which can be valued as ‘progress’, etc.

Constructing purpose for the species is a archaic extension of religion that has refused to die throughout the ages.

What about constructing purpose for the individual?

Another illusion.

( Come look at my “selfhood as a delusion” thread.)

( Is going to make some new posts there next.)

Ok, yet you said:

Joker:

If you believe that “humans” are animals there can be no such thing as the history of humanity but instead only the lives of particular men.

I’m pointing out that though you see society as a disparate yet conventionally associated bundle of elements, you don’t seem to see ‘individuals’ in the same way. Who are these ‘particular men’, and why are they more important than societies or cultures? Neither individual men nor cultures can be deemed real in the ultimate analysis, which isn’t to say that either one is meaningless.

Societies are ideals in the face of chaos. In the face of reality societies don’t exist.

Only various people comprising societies exist.