Society And Civilization My Favorite Subject Of Chimera

I think society and civilization is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Self fulfilling prophecy being:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy

I also believe nature has nothing to do with society or our civilized means of existance by having no influence on us whatsoever. ( Let the debate begin.)

Our suffering exists because we have blocked out the influence of nature entirely.

I understand the premise, but where is your application example of society and civilisation being likewise, if you would?

How about some actual historical examples for once, man? :stuck_out_tongue:

/ sorry for the testiness… long day :confused:

suffering inspires us towards greater heights

What do you mean?

What does greater heights mean?

Why is most forms of human suffering even necessary at all?

Is it not obvious that man clenches on any ideal convenient to himself in trying to conquer everything under it causing himself pain and his enviroment?

That right there is a historical assessment of man.

Actually, believe it or not, no, it’s not obvious that ‘man’ universally behaves as you’re claiming.

Support this with some examples (even though this still wouldn’t be proof.)

But anyway, why are you trying to convince us? We’re just clenching our ideals trying to conquer everything. So you need to tell me why I should give a @#$% about what you’re saying – especially when all I apparently want to do is hurt you with my ‘dangerous’ ideas.

Come on, do you see how ridiculous this is? You can’t make these outrageous claims about the ‘universal nature of man’ without any sort of historical basis.

For example, what if I claim that ‘man’ as we understand it is a recent cultural invention, and one not probably going to last for too much longer? Then there’s no such thing as ‘universal’ properties of humanity – only a diverse collection of ideas across various cultures.

And if you’re going to claim that you’ve got something which is universal to all of humanity, you have to back it up or else you’re just being overtly rhetorical.

Actually it’s an a-historical assessment of ‘man.’

For example, you could have talked about the way rationalism and the Enlightenment contributed to colonialism. Or the way capitalism exploits the environment and the creative energy of human beings to perpetuate the flow of money. Or the way war-machines throughout human history have turned against the state-machines which attempted to use violence to defend themselves against contradictions within their society.

You could have brought up nearly anything to defend your assertion. But you didn’t, because you imagined it was ‘obvious’ that ‘mankind’ is ‘universally’ a certain way… So again, it’s not a historical assessment but an imaginative assessment! :frowning:

Sorry, I’m not trying to be mean. I just really, really want you to be clearer about what you think. You’re plenty smart – you don’t have to convince us of that! I’m curious what you think, not what you imagine! :wink: