Until a soul, the soul, my soul is able to be demonstrated [to me] to be an existing entity, I’ll have to note that any explanation from me here and now is little more than just another existential contraption.
And I suspect the same with the souls of everyone else.
On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that a human soul does in fact exist [as described by one or another narrator] that’s a whole other ballgame.
From my frame of mind, when I speak of my own particular self here and now, there are things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true objectively. For example, I live in Baltimore. I was born in Wilkes Barre. I am an army veteran. I participate in discussions at ILP. I drive a VW Beetle. I am a white male. I am 5’9" tall. I was once married and have a daughter.
Facts about me.
Now, is it a fact that I either have or do not have a soul? Is it a fact that my moral philosphy [nihilism] is the optimal or the only rational frame of mind?
We either draw the line between what we can demonstrate to in fact be true about oursleves and the world around us, or it is argued that anything and everything that we claim to know or believe is true [about the soul or anything else], is as far as we need to go.
To at once make the human more hardy and more subtle. This has been the challenge of cultivation for millennia.
Mr R is right that humanity is doing a lot more than surviving, nature also ways does a lot more than surviving, because this excess is required for procreation, for being selected.
The health and vigor of a specimen is hard to establish without seeing it in action contexts less and more friendly to its natural term-setting. So chid-rearing should both include hardships and glories. This was the aristocracies ways, to expose the human to extremities, to an extent, so as to maximize its scope of being.
In this day and age it is not at all impossible or even unlikely to live both glories and hardships - so we might say this is a good time for mankind, even though in all the masses, you have to make an effort to spot the virtues – but once you do it is hard to unsee how magnificent the current breed of humanity is in countless manifestations.
I believe these qualities have always been desirable, hardiness and subtlety. Like with wood. Also, fragrancy.
Whereas much hardness has left the west, the difficult psychological fact of the death of god, and our survival of this fact, has made us more subtle and hardy in ways perhaps too fresh to identify.
Of course I am speaking about elite strands of our genetic and cultural pools. But all starts with elites.
Natural selection has become modernised by current migration patterns… pairings, now being brought-about by Brexit-induced needs, from a desperate place of abandonment and upheaval - would pairings based on that, be a stable and durable one? I doubt it!
…so, what would qualify as/make for a, stable and durable pairing? or force the independents into one?
Okay, and I’m just going to throw out this question. What in the hell is viviocentric?
I’m flat out agreeing to this. I believe it was more an adaptation to our surrounding environment originally explained forthright by Gib.
Going about it like this though. I don’t know. I feel as though we missed the point of natural selection here.
Just as the idea of evolution sets in I think of the froggy adaptation. It had totally evolve before my eyes.
Again I feel there needs to be more clarification with this topic. Our entire race of humans have gotten up to this point in history which says a whole lot for it’s superiority and again. Not as if it i.e. (big, strong, smart, etc., small, comparably weak, and even not as smart)
Quality of man/women depend on how much they use their mind. Say somebody was much stronger and brawn. Now this other person had science knowledge of certain physics/chemistry. They both have their weaknesses/their advantages. For the human race it was always naturalistic of us to survive. To protect, and secure our loved ones and neighbors. Although come to think of it. In nature we find there’s a predator and prey. The wolf hunts the sheep and the sheep eat only grass. You live off of what is intended to provide. Instincts and survival have to kick in. Sorta like what Urwrongx1000 was saying.
As much as I love to say it. I believe life isn’t going anywhere even long after we’re dead. But even so, if there were like some sorta annihilation of earth again, the world would just pick up where it left off. Possibly until another complete disaster.
Better adapted, less well adapted are better terms. There are organisms, including humans, who have less to contribute. It’s true that a crippled genius does would, but then there are others who would not.
Well, it ptrobably would. People who were less resistant would die before procreating or not fully support the children they had before dying or during the longer illnesses and this would indeed likely lead to people who were more resistant. If tuberculosis was one of the major threats, then natural selection would lead to better adapted humans in relation to it, just as bacteria that are better resistant to antiobiotics will start to arise.
I am not advocating anything, just noting. The ones who want more natural selection are not trying to prevent disease or deaths. They want the best adapted homo sapian genes to win out.
You know natural selection isn’t dead, but only scrutinized by what some may consider to be perfect, as opposed to others never having known perfection.
