History Has No Meaning.

[anon]

@Joker

@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.

I thought you said individuals were an illusion? Did I misunderstand? I’m combining your comments on this thread with your comments here, as you suggested.

[Joker]

@anon

@Joker

@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.

I thought you said individuals were an illusion? Did I misunderstand? I’m combining your comments on this thread with your comments here, as you suggested.

You are correct, I did say that individuality is an illusion along with the subject of selfhood.

Physically however no two individuals are the same either in a empirical sense.

I see no contradiction in what I have spoken about thus far.

[Mucius_Scevola]

Joker,

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.

Those are positions you have to defend with arguments, provided you want anyone to take you seriously. Once you have done that, you will have - by way of rational discourse - ascribed some meaning to historical development and argued for a particular viewpoint.

History always does repeat itself.

See ? You’re already doing it, albeit in a pre-rational manner. You’re offering a cyclical theory of history in a pessimistic, decline-of-the-West kind of tone.

Meaning isn’t redundant or old-fashioned. It’s really a very comfortable tool for finding your way through concepts and theories.

[Joker]

@Mucius Scevola

Joker,

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.

Those are positions you have to defend with arguments, provided you want anyone to take you seriously. Once you have done that, you will have - by way of rational discourse - ascribed some meaning to historical development and argued for a particular viewpoint.

History always does repeat itself.

See ? You’re already doing it, albeit in a pre-rational manner. You’re offering a cyclical theory of history in a pessimistic, decline-of-the-West kind of tone.

Meaning isn’t redundant or old-fashioned. It’s really a very comfortable tool for finding your way through concepts and theories.

Meaning isn’t redundant or old-fashioned. It’s really a very comfortable tool for finding your way through concepts and theories.

It’s a useful hallucination. I’ll give you that much.

( The world is filled with useful hallucinating idiots.)

See ? You’re already doing it, albeit in a pre-rational manner. You’re offering a cyclical theory of history in a pessimistic, decline-of-the-West kind of tone.

Why should it be anything else?

Those are positions you have to defend with arguments, provided you want anyone to take you seriously. Once you have done that, you will have - by way of rational discourse - ascribed some meaning to historical development and argued for a particular viewpoint.

I’m just making simple statements.

Now since you are on the opposite side in disagreement please feel free to address all my points as to why I am so wrong.

(Wasn’t born yesterday.)

[anon]

@Joker

You are correct, I did say that individuality is an illusion along with the subject of selfhood.

Physically however no two individuals are the same either in a empirical sense.

I see no contradiction in what I have spoken about thus far.

This is my main point - that there is not a fundamental difference between groups and individuals, as individuals consist of groups and groups can be seen as individuals:

@anon

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.

If society as an entity is an illusion, and if the individual as an entity is an illusion, then what basis is there for positing a fundamental difference between how we ascribe meanings to them as conventional ‘entities’? I may find meaning and inspiration in Thoreau’s personal life whereas someone else may find meaning and inspiration in the ‘progress’ of western civilization in general. Aside from the fact that many people believe in a fundamental way in the existence of discreet individuals or the truth of progress, aren’t those conceptions equally empty yet meaningful?

[Joker]

@anon

@Joker

You are correct, I did say that individuality is an illusion along with the subject of selfhood.

Physically however no two individuals are the same either in a empirical sense.

I see no contradiction in what I have spoken about thus far.

This is my main point - that there is not a fundamental difference between groups and individuals, as individuals consist of groups and groups can be seen as individuals:

@anon

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.

If society as an entity is an illusion, and if the individual as an entity is an illusion, then what basis is there for positing a fundamental difference between how we ascribe meanings to them as conventional ‘entities’? I may find meaning and inspiration in Thoreau’s personal life whereas someone else may find meaning and inspiration in the ‘progress’ of western civilization in general. Aside from the fact that many people believe in a fundamental way in the existence of discreet individuals or the truth of progress, aren’t those conceptions equally empty yet meaningful?

This is my main point - that there is not a fundamental difference between groups and individuals, as individuals consist of groups and groups can be seen as individuals:

Groups are idealizations especially in the sense of civilized ones.

Biological people are just that “people” not idealizations.

If society as an entity is an illusion, and if the individual as an entity is an illusion, then what basis is there for positing a fundamental difference between how we ascribe meanings to them as conventional ‘entities’? I may find meaning and inspiration in Thoreau’s personal life whereas someone else may find meaning and inspiration in the ‘progress’ of western civilization in general. Aside from the fact that many people believe in a fundamental way in the existence of discreet individuals or the truth of progress, aren’t those conceptions equally empty yet meaningful?

If society as an entity is an illusion, and if the individual as an entity is an illusion, then what basis is there for positing a fundamental difference between how we ascribe meanings to them as conventional ‘entities’?

It is all about negation and nihilation my dear Watson.

My goal in my philosophy is to reach the center of what is not as to what things should be.

Aside from the fact that many people believe in a fundamental way in the existence of discreet individuals or the truth of progress, aren’t those conceptions equally empty yet meaningful?

Why couldn’t these same conceptions be very convincing forms of hysterical insanity?

( Try that question on for size.)

[anon]

@Joker

Groups are idealizations especially in the sense of civilized ones.

People are people not idealizations.

I don’t think idealization is limited to ‘civilized’ societies. Of course people are idealizations. I idealize myself as much as I idealize other people, both positively and negatively. My god, every morning when I look in the mirror I turn my head slightly to the left because it’s the profile that flatters me the most.

@Joker

It is all about negation and nihilation my dear Watson.

Not sure what that means.

[Joker]

@anon

@Joker

Groups are idealizations especially in the sense of civilized ones.

People are people not idealizations.

I don’t think idealization is limited to ‘civilized’ societies. Of course people are idealizations. I idealize myself as much as I idealize other people, both positively and negatively. My god, every morning when I look in the mirror I turn my head slightly to the left because it’s the profile that flatters me the most.

@Joker

It is all about negation and nihilation my dear Watson.

Not sure what that means.

I don’t think idealization is limited to ‘civilized’ societies. Of course people are idealizations. I idealize myself as much as I idealize other people, both positively and negatively. My god, every morning when I look in the mirror I turn my head slightly to the left because it’s the profile that flatters me the most.

Of course it is not but it is very dominant in civilized cultures under the guises of institutionalization.

Of course people are idealizations.

You forget that I don’t believe in actual selfhood or a unitary self.

Beyond all idealizations, dreams, and delusions we are just walking bodies of physical flesh…Nothing more.

Not sure what that means.

Read some philosophical nihilism.

[anon]

@Joker

Of course people are idealizations.

You forget that I don’t believe in actual selfhood or a unitary self.

Beyond all idealizations, dreams, and delusions we are just walking bodies of physical flesh…Nothing more.

Much less, perhaps. I see no reason to deconstruct mind without likewise deconstructing matter. Why differentiate? And if we are simply ‘walking bodies of physical flesh’ then why idealize ‘the lives of particular men’?

[Joker]

@anon

@Joker

Of course people are idealizations.

You forget that I don’t believe in actual selfhood or a unitary self.

Beyond all idealizations, dreams, and delusions we are just walking bodies of physical flesh…Nothing more.

Much less, perhaps. I see no reason to deconstruct mind without likewise deconstructing matter. Why differentiate? And if we are simply ‘walking bodies of physical flesh’ then why idealize ‘the lives of particular men’?

I see no reason to deconstruct mind without likewise deconstructing matter. Why differentiate?

I don’t understand.

And if we are simply ‘walking bodies of physical flesh’ then why idealize ‘the lives of particular men’?

Not sure that I follow.

[anon]

@Joker

@anon

@Joker

Of course people are idealizations.

You forget that I don’t believe in actual selfhood or a unitary self.

Beyond all idealizations, dreams, and delusions we are just walking bodies of physical flesh…Nothing more.

Much less, perhaps. I see no reason to deconstruct mind without likewise deconstructing matter. Why differentiate? And if we are simply ‘walking bodies of physical flesh’ then why idealize ‘the lives of particular men’?

I see no reason to deconstruct mind without likewise deconstructing matter. Why differentiate?

I don’t understand.

And if we are simply ‘walking bodies of physical flesh’ then why idealize ‘the lives of particular men’?

Not sure that I follow.

Well that’s ok. We’ll talk again.

[Joker]

What is humanism but a blind universal faith in human emancipation?

The idea of progress resembles religious providence.

In science the growth of knowledge is cumulative.

Human life as whole is not a cumulative activity; what is gained in one generation may be entirely lost in the next.

Science increases men’s functioning biopower but with it magnifies all the flaws of men too.

If the hope of progress is an illusion, how- it will be asked- are we to live?

Such a question assumes that humans can live well only if they believe they have the power to remake the world yet most humans who have ever lived have not believed this and a great many have had happy lives.

Political action has come to be a surrogate for religious salvation.

The world doesn’t need or desire to be saved.

[stephenstillwell]

@Joker

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

And you come to this conclusion from, history?

Accepting the premise that humans and all their endeavors are meaningless is understandable, and seems core to your argument.

The illusion I have of meaning is sufficient for me to discount that view, though it looms constantly in my awareness.

[Joker]

@stephenstillwell

@Joker

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

And you come to this conclusion from, history?

Accepting the premise that humans and all their endeavors are meaningless is understandable, and seems core to your argument.

The illusion I have of meaning is sufficient for me to discount that view, though it looms constantly in my awareness.

And you come to this conclusion from, history?

From Observation.

Accepting the premise that humans and all their endeavors are meaningless is understandable, and seems core to your argument.

Indeed.

The illusion I have of meaning is sufficient for me to discount that view, though it looms constantly in my awareness.

Fair enough.

[LexDemian]

Human beings are creatures of habit. They are prone to repeat past responses to stimuli when posed with similiar stimuli in future settings. Regard to history affords societies the benefit of avoiding the duplication of past errors.

[democritus]

History is a great tool for propaganda.

[Joker]

@LexDemian

Human beings are creatures of habit. They are prone to repeat past responses to stimuli when posed with similiar stimuli in future settings. Regard to history affords societies the benefit of avoiding the duplication of past errors.

Yet past errors always repeat themselves even the adept historian knows that unless they be in denial.

[Joker]

@democritus

History is a great tool for propaganda.

Finally someone who understands.

[Joker]

This thread comes down to one blatant reality.

Men are no different than other animals. Their history is no different from other animals.

What is salvation to the tiger, or nirvana to the cockroach?

History has no meaning. People are born, seek mates, forage for food, defecate and die. That is all.

[davids04]

@Joker

This thread comes down to one blatant reality.

Men are no different than other animals. Their history is no different from other animals.

What is salvation to the tiger, or nirvana to the cockroach?

History has no meaning. People are born, seek mates, forage for food, and die. That is all.

I think this person suffers from low self-esteem, to think this way. This person is just tossing out ridiculous arguments, like men are no different than other animals. Don’t Men have toilets?

I have never heard of another animal writing a book, scoring a song or making a movie. And I don’t think other animals lust like Man.

Other animals also make history but only Man writes it down. History for Man is a reference book. So, it does have meaning.