[b]David Hume was the first to describe the natural fallacy under his famous statement that you can’t describe a “ought” from an “is”.
Here today we see culturalists saying the same thing to that of naturalists where they prescribe the belief that there really is no reason why civilization is unnatural in scene of life as they state in their defence that such belief is a “ought” too.
It is here in this thread that I plan to challenge that very belief of the culturalists below.[/b]
What is civilization? It is a hyperreality that simulates actual existence in accordance with people’s relative collective ongoing constantly changing perpetual desires.
( Civilization is a simulacrum of actual reality.)
What is its function? It constantly seeks to make existence more real than real.
So infact it is civilization which tries to transform the natural into the supernatural.
It does appear that civilization and culture is the perpetrator of the “ought” not the philosophy of naturalism in comparison.
Looks like culturalists and civic idealists are committing the very fallacy they are accusing the naturalists of.
What is naturalism? It is the philosophy of reaffirming what is.
So what are the naturalists being accused of? Relatively good question. 
Culture is a social generation made by many people’s adaptations working together. I wish you’d stop with your half-baked halfpropositional claims about culture and society.
Wtf is a hyper-reality? Soceties and culturals are natural.
A reading from the book of Neil:
It’s such a cloudy day
Seems we’ll never see the sun
Or feel the day has possibilities
Frozen in the moment…
The lack of imagination
Between how it is and how it ought to be
I see you’ve been going through some post-modern philosophy- or vocabulary, which isn’t that different, anyway.
If you’ve been reading Baudrillard, you didn’t understand it, or disagreed with him, though. He was far far beyond that Matrix movie people saw (if you didn’t catch it, I am telling you that he disagreed, as I do, with that duality - Hyperreality/real).
He was more like a combination of “Truman’s show” with “13th floor” and a bit of the no-facts-just-interpretation-Nietzsche. Or, if you prefer, he didn’t believe in an absolute truth - and even so, he was a dissident of what real truth that was possible, simply because most of what we lived on and regarded as truth were in fact, virtualities, something people told us, but were the basis of our reality and upon which we built our own narratives (simulation over simulation over simulation…)
He did feel sorry that it had to be so. But he saw no alternative to it.
One of the points of all of this is merely that you are trusting what others said to believe that in nature we are all free (you are submitting to the power of those narratives). And even if it was true, you have no way of making us not-like what we have now, even if it’s the maximum virtuality. Most things in life are part-virtual, just not irreferential.
Plus, it would be impossible to build a reality like the one you want to, simply because it would require almost every person to die. You can’t even guarantee that the strong would survive, simply because a group is stronger than one. Also, people would be scared that they wouldn’t be the ones to survive.
And all of that in the basis of small narratives about a free, wild life. There’s not even a way of making sure society wouldn’t spring again.
answers.com/topic/hyperreality
answers.com/topic/simulation?cat=health
answers.com/virtual+reality?cat=biz-fin
Now use those three contexts above and compare them with the religious notion of the supernatural until your head implodes.
Finally we have someone here who understands the position of this thread.
( This should be interesting.)
I dabble.
You are right to assume that I have been reading Jean Baudrillard.
I agree with most of what Baudrillard added to the subject but I have also added some of my own interpretations with my Rousseaunian, nihilistic, and pessmistic flare as a extra ingredient.
Once you understand the natural world as the absence of all truth, facts, and various concocted realities of men you begin to understand the construction of such realities as representing hyperreal simulated dream worlds in accordance to non-fixed and non-biological relative desires perpetuated by numerous amounts of people in perpetual ongoing states of existence.
People like to say that all these things are perfectly natural especially our outspoken civ culturalists but these same very people fail to recognize or elaborate the basis of their faithful convictions.
If it was so natural why wasn’t these constructions handed down to us instantaneously at the moment of man’s creation in a simultaneous fashion?
( People often forget that in each generation of existence all cultural progression is a ongoing construction and that it simply did not exist simultaneously at man’s creation but instead came long after it therefore how can we call it a natural biological process?)
Actually I believe we are naturally free from each other but I admit in a sense that there is no escape from that which is the natural world and I conclude that inevitably nature inherently dominates us all.
Your quite right but then again part of my pessimism thinks that noone or nothing will have to make us come to any sudden realizations of this fictitious stage of ours since we as absurd crazed beings are literally tearing and ripping ourselves apart as everyday goes on where eventually we will force our own hands to a realization either willingly or unwillingly by nature or by our complete self destruction.
I believe we are coming to a infinite regression of whole civilizations presently.
I am under the impression that there is no reality that we must build period.
I believe the alternative to this absurd insane spectacle is the complete and utter relinquishment of the simulations we have devised ourselves with in the full acceptance of nature’s embrace that is the natural enviroment which exists as the desert of the real today in our overrated worshipped hyperrealities that perpetuates themselves as glorified idols selling out hope.
We need only to relinquish all the idols, operas and narcotics of the simulated dream worlds in order to exist in a world that we have long forgotten or that we have for too long ignored through fear.
We need only to give up the fictitious labels of being gods or as being the earth’s divine caretakers.
In complete relinquishment there exists a entirely new world which has always been around but has remained hidden through our various hysterical blinders of whole intoxicating religions.
In life there is no guarantees.
Of course.
I am under the impression that civilization is a random relative anomaly and that since it is so random in the scene of things there exists no inevitability in the wake of it’s destruction as to it springing back again.
( This articulation here is the fear of all culturalists and it is also the very fear that strengthens their resolve of enslaving others in the hopes that such malign actions will shield them from ever having to deal with such a total end through cultural invention.)
Culturalists and the civilized know deep down in themselves that this fictitious stage of wonder is a one shot wonder but the absurdity of it all is, to where?
I like Baudrillard a lot. Far beyond the regular Real philosophy. He gave classes to some of my teachers so I guess I get to ask questions about him many people can’t 
If you have one, I can ask my teachers. A shame Baudrillard died, would surely try to talk to him if I knew my teachers before then.
Man’s creation? Don’t think there ever was that. There is no essence of what a man is, we just recognise patterns that we give values ourselves and call those man. Not that the conception of race is false, anyway, just not an absolute.
What’s so bad about things being constructed? Everything is constructed.
If real was a tangible object, it would be soft clay.
The notion that we should strive for the Real is a platonic/religious one and indeed very nihilistic (I don’t reckon you as a nihilist, I think you know what is my concept of it is, so I guess you’ll understand), since Real, Truth, etc are all constructions as well and almost non-existant. Most of what we call absolutes are actually a simulation of an absolute in order to ensure communication and efficiency.
The reason why I don’t fall into the enchant of the maximum illusion is because I reckon that I like what I am and that my subjectivity was actually constructed by living with differences and alterities. Hyperreality tends to destroy the differences (globalization), so that’s a good reason I oppose it. Other is the annoying speed and hyperstymulum.
Also, I don’t think there’s an outside nature. Or that there is nature, if you prefer. Either everything is natural or nothing is.
Naturally free from each other? A human baby is one of the most dependent offsprings in nature.
Be careful with what you are saying. It may be the same as denying that technology ever made a difference towards taking us away from nature. Pretty sure you can recognize the increase in life time, decrease on hunger on developed countries, etc.
Nature is also a construction, anyways. If you think that evolution is relative (a tribe in Africa has a kind of anemia that also makes them immune to malaria and if the world had almost no food, bacteria would be better off than any of us), it’s pretty easy to see that.
The Baudrillard you red was a simulacrum. Peharps he always was one, since he was born in a Control Society, like us. Under observation, are we actually being who we are? And don’t we slowly become the roles we perform?
Even now, what you wrote is a simulacrum. It is a virtualization of whatever knowledge you believe you have, which actually was based on other virtualizations and on observation of people who were roleplaying themselves.
My opinion is that this always been the desert of the Real, but noone ever realized that. It’ll always be, except if you strive for the maximum reality of total death and destruction. Not worth it, in my opinion.
Think it’s better to fight for and with our society than try to end it. Pretty sure it’s also more efficient and realist.
What’s so wrong with fiction? Your dream of that world is a fiction now.
What’s so wrong with trust and faith? There’s nothing outside faith for the others, simply because we can’t be without an alterity. What do you get for destruction of civilization?
SO much better to learn how to deal with the system, rather than destroying it. And it’s pretty much possible, if you ask me.
Whether or not it is absurd, I am sure I wouldn’t like the non-civilization any better. Would you?
Living in the absurd is a choice, anyway. So many did that.
The rationalist who deals with this existent world at all is pretty sure to insist that within it there is no mere datum, but everyting is thoroughly explicable and logically necessary: “the real is the rational and that rational the real.”
Now if we ask how the rationalist knows this to be the case, he cannot, of course, appeal in its defense to empirical evidence, for that would be to surrender his position.
But neither can he prove in a priori fashion that it must be so: for there is nothing self contradictory in the opposite view.
His utlimate appeal is therefore of an essentially emotional or aesthetic sort.
He is unwilling to consider the hypothesis that this world should contain within it anything not necessitated by reason.
Is the real really the rational and the rational the real?
The veil of perception illustrates the view that the things our senses are conversant about are to be radically distinguished from the objects we are immediately aware of in expirience, and it seems to leave us stranded like prisoners in a cave looking at shadows.
There exists a fundamental distinction between the external objects which we behold (regard) and the mental entities which we see(voir).
No way. Why should it even be that way? Would be very very boring, actually.
Not like rationality is absolute, anyways.
If I am not mistaken, I even said “There is no essence of what a man is, we just recognise patterns to which we give values ourselves and call those man”. I’m basically, now speaking on Plato’s concepts, not Baudrillard’s, saying that there’s no Idea, only Simulacrum.
What about my other arguments, anyway?
There are no fundaments except those we invent. The notion that we should search for Truth with a capital T is an invention of the greatest of the Sophists - Plato.
The madmen who don’t share our reality are no wrong if they want to live their own real.
I’ll get back to your posts soon Adolpho.
( Your posts require contemplation and excessive thinking which cannot be produced in one day’s time.)
To adolpho-
The reality of everday life is organized around the “here” of my body and the “now” of my present. This “here and now” is the focus of my attention to the reality of everyday life.
Natural symbiotic enviroments substain the here of my body and the now of my present.
Civilization and all the constructed forms have nothing to do with it.