Rousseau, specifically Progress vs Stability in Modern Times

[TimeAsylums]

Discuss


...both sides

 

[TBerg]

Neoconservatism minus the Bush Administration plus a nexus of libertarians and liberals equals the new prospect for hope.

Otherwise all we get is a bipartisan authoritarianism more concerned with respecting authoritarians in other cultures than respecting freedom and equality everywhere.

 

[Vrecknidj]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's intro "In the modern world, human beings come to derive their very sense of self from the opinion of others, a fact which Rousseau sees as corrosive of freedom and destructive of individual authenticity. "

Prior to radio, massive urbanization, automated industrialization and the like, there was, perhaps, greater individualism. There was no mass culture. If a woman in one town liked another woman's dress, she would have to find someone who could mimic it. This process took a long time, was labor intensive, etc.

After all of these things, thousands people in Los Angeles and New York could purchase items showcased in Paris and London within a week. And, today, when a new video game launches, it could sell hundreds of thousands to millions of identical copies nearly simultaneously.

Today's best smart phone is probably millions of times more powerful and capable (and certainly provides its user greater and faster access to information) than all the world's computers in the 1960s, and probably most of the world's most powerful computers even in the 1980s. Consider that rate of growth. In a generation, there will be a device the size of a grain of sand (or red blood cell) that is as powerful as all the smart phones on the planet today combined.

Given all of this, the interconnectivity of things like the Internet and its applications like Facebook, the push toward some kind of collectivism seems inevitable. There will always be outliers; the Elon Musks of the world allow for this continued technological advancement. But, as for the great masses, the 7 billion NPCs, as it were, we almost need to have things like Monsanto mass producing food, etc., just to handle the strain.

Poor Rousseau. He was witnessing a major change happening -- nothing like what it would become 200 years later, but, still, profound.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Stability lacks perfection
Progress lacks fruition

 

[TimeAsylums]

Stability lacks perfection
Progress lacks fruition

I like it. Puts into words the principles perfectly.


thanks

 

[Brontosaurie]

Stability lacks perfection
Progress lacks fruition

isn't it the other way around

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

isn't it the other way around

Not, unless you think about metaphysical, rather than enthropic, finite time perspective, look at the world

 

[TimeAsylums]

isn't it the other way around

I can't help but view it in terms of Ne-Si

How the Ne never settles down, and if it did and simply focused then "their progress would come to fruition." Said somewhere on an ENTP profile or another. Too much change. No stability. If it takes three years to enact some health care plan or shit idk, but then we change the law every 2 months, that's another 3 years...or some shit like that.

It's even funnier because Roussy isn't a bad poster by for INFP

 

[Cherry Cola]

Things aren't stable which hinders progress. Things aren't stable because extremely few people actually understand what humans are and how they function, society needs to be crafted in accordance with actual humans, not humanities idealized bullshit view of itself. Therefore money needs to spent on and progress needs to happen in all fields pertaining to uncover the mechanisms by which the human psyche functions, fields such as biosemiotics, neurology, evolutionary psychology, linguistics, psychology, and anthropology. Thereafter everyone will realize that science is da motherfukken shit and real progress can start to happen in all fields and stupidity shall be shunned. Of course this will never happen cause humans are fucking stupid scum.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Thereafter everyone will realize that science is da motherfukken shit and real progress can start to happen in all fields and stupidity shall be shunned. Of course this will never happen cause humans are fucking stupid scum.

Thereafter one should realise that science is an empty purposeless tool that brings more and more of the same already existing things at the cost of more and more already existing things.

Stupidity is a measure of the unquestionable and self-affirmed existence in the now. It is beautiful as such.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Not, unless you think about metaphysical, rather than enthropic, finite time perspective, look at the world

progress is motivated by the prospect of perfection
stability is motivated by the prospect of fruition (since every change momentarily disrupts functional resource allocation and distribution systems/homeostases etc, meaning that stability orientation prioritizes immediate reward over future perfection)

motivation is lack

stability has perfection in itself, and progress has fruition in itself.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

progress is motivated by the prospect of perfection
stability is motivated by the prospect of fruition (since every change momentarily disrupts functional resource allocation and distribution systems/homeostases etc, meaning that stability orientation prioritizes immediate reward over future perfection)

motivation is lack

stability has perfection in itself, and progress has fruition in itself.

progress increases perfection, has perfection as its goal
perfection means, complete (everlasting, overarching, total) fruition
stability is a period of fruition after the progress has occured, there is no perfect stability unless we are talking about some branches of philosophy, theoretical terms, then it should be pointed out which and why

Thermodynamic equilibrium (or a isolated physical system of reference with no energy/mass loss in relation to the larger system it is a part of) is as of yet impossible, therefore, every period of stability means loss and is imperfect due to the entropy

 

[Cherry Cola]

Thereafter one should realise that science is an empty purposeless tool that brings more and more of the same already existing things at the cost of more and more already existing things.

Stupidity is a measure of the unquestionable and self-affirmed existence in the now. It is beautiful as such.

What a load of bullshit, ever noticed how whenever science makes a leap that leap spills over into all other of your purposeful tools which bring more and more of different things which did not exist at the cost of nothing?

All you're doing is playing the "im so cool I diss science cuz all deese nerd young men they's think science gon solve everthing, but science gon solve nuthin cuz science only ask how not why lol so pointless"

I suggest you rethink your life.

 

[Cherry Cola]

progress increases perfection, has perfection as its goal
perfection means, complete (everlasting, overarching, total) fruition
stability is a period of fruition after the progress has occured, there is no perfect stability unless we are talking about some branches of philosophy, theoretical terms, then it should be pointed out which and why

Thermodynamic equilibrium (or a isolated physical system of reference with no energy/mass loss in relation to the larger system it is a part of) is as of yet impossible, therefore, every period of stability means loss and is imperfect due to the entropy

=we cannot fully understand the universe ever because perfection is only achievable within an imperfect system and the universe will end someday therefore we should not attempt to understand it and die when the sun blows up cuz if we cant have it all lets have very little

 

[Brontosaurie]

progress increases perfection, has perfection as its goal

exactly. progress is what springs out of a lack of perfection. the hope to attain perfection (which depends on current lack of perfection) keeps progress going. likewise, the need for fruition (i.e. scarcity) maintains tried-and-true methods, status quo, stability.

there'd be no progress without lack of perfection, and no stability without lack of fruition.

a stable system defines its own perfection, however arbitrary, and the notion of progress implies a pay-off/reward/fruition in the end.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I suggest you rethink your life.

I think you are being overly judgemental, your posts in this thread required my attention, because of their final and set in stone nature.

What a load of bullshit, ever noticed how whenever science makes a leap that leap spills over into all other of your purposeful tools which bring more and more of different things which did not exist at the cost of nothing?

I suggest you consider before you call something bullshit.
You yourself have not brought forward anything else than your judgemental opinion.
If you do not like my view on that matter, don't call my post bullshit.
Rather, use silence and turn away.

I propose a view that no tool is purposeful, tools are created to satisfy a need, to help reach some purpose.

The cost is never nothing, I can easily say that what you post is illogical, you should rethink what you have posted.

All you're doing is playing the "im so cool I diss science cuz all deese nerd young men they's think science gon solve everthing, but science gon solve nuthin cuz science only ask how not why lol so pointless"

All you are trying to judge me thinking "im so cool to diss science". I don't care if you are a nerd and you felt touched by what I posted. I think that if you are a nerd you should have some pride, regardless, you have 0 final evidence and yet you started to toy with me having your own hands tied at the beginning.

Actually just to make that clear, don't put such things I didn't post forward, as I consider it inconvenient to discuss with you or respect you as a person, when I am met with such an emotional and yet inconsiderate towards me response.

I suggest you rethink your life.

I suggest, you either back out and rethink what you have posted, or at the very least agree that what you have begun will either result in a pointless defense of undefendable and unprovable claims of either of us, or in us ignoring ourselves.
I wouldn't want to create a situation in which we ignore each other, I think that you may have some valuable future posts that I might consider replying to and maybe interacting together in a more valuable way, than simply judging and fighting for ground.

I also think that your suggestion will have more power and helpful meaning if it will be backed by value and intellect.

Now that it is more understandable let me explain why have I posted this

Thereafter one should realise that science is an empty purposeless tool that brings more and more of the same already existing things at the cost of more and more already existing things.

It was a direct response in a similar manner to this piece of the post:

Thereafter everyone will realize that science is da motherfukken shit and real progress can start to happen in all fields and stupidity shall be shunned. Of course this will never happen cause humans are fucking stupid scum.

Do you see how closed, shortsighted this part is? I disagree that there is any reason other than individual human will to get rid of stupidity. My view is an acceptance of the situation and your post seems to be attacking or showing human condition and behaviour as relatively "bad" or "inferior"

I responded in kind, arguing reactionism to balance the image or view on the matter.

I don't intend to defend reactionism as I don't personally agree with it, I also don't agree with pure transhumanism and progressivism and as such, my response was a kind of inviting or question directed at you, that you seem to have redirected to your senseless attribution to my person and to my personal views and values, which is negative and unconstructive in itself.

=we cannot fully understand the universe ever because perfection is only achievable within an imperfect system and the universe will end someday therefore we should not attempt to understand it and die when the sun blows up cuz if we cant have it all lets have very little

No if you want to criticise my reactionism, or assert that I am reactionist, that I hold something against science, you should dissect my post and point out what parts made you think so.

Instead of simply continuing your silly judgement of my person and transferring it to my second post in which I present an entirely different view that I would like to be discussed, not attached to my person. Call it strawman.

After these two posts I have a feeling that you either don't want to discuss with me, which is irrational when based on the response you provided, or you felt that your post (which I didn't even assume was your standpoint), was your real standpoint on the matter and you felt attacked and decided to put me down.

If the latter was the case, I suggest you do this in a more logical and constructive way next time, while by no means could it be my intention that created this situation.

exactly. progress is what springs out of a lack of perfection. the hope to attain perfection (which depends on current lack of perfection) keeps progress going. likewise, the need for fruition (i.e. scarcity) maintains tried-and-true methods, status quo, stability.

there'd be no progress without lack of perfection, and no stability without lack of fruition.

a stable system defines its own perfection, however arbitrary, and the notion of progress implies a pay-off/reward/fruition in the end.

Great, we seem to agree on this.

Stability and progress are interconnected. Also I would add that status quo and fruition does not only relate to the "tried and true methods" but also the need for consumption, rest, entertainment and experiences, that not necessarily can be related to progress for the sake of perfection.

Oh, I see one thing.
There would be stability if there wasn't a lack of fruition, something I'd call everlasting stability without progress. Or maybe you can rephrase what you meant.

 

[scorpiomover]

Progress is usually considered more important than stability by NJs.
Stability is usually considered more important than progress by NJs.

If life was better with only one, then societies composed exclusively of one type, would have become dominant via evolution. Evolution has made societies where SJs are a majority, but not the totality, the dominant form, because they are the most adapted. Ergo, the most successful paradigm is mostly stability, and some progress, approximately 75% stability and 25% progress.

 

[redbaron]

Brings more and more of the same already existing things at the cost of more and more already existing things.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Can you give an example of what you mean?

This was my response to the CC's post.

It is used to mean that science doesn't create new concepts and operates on the already existing ideas and advances to bring them closer to the reality.

Science also operates on the principles and these principles assume that there cannot be anything new from what already exists. There will be no type of being or matter if it didn't exist before, or wasn't created according to the known or yet unknown rules/principles. Science as such helps to discover and replicate the reality.

the definition of progress:

: movement forward or toward a place
: the process of improving or developing something over a period of time



1
a (1) : a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2) : a state procession
b : a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge)
c : an expedition, journey, or march through a region

2
: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance

3
: gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind

In itself the science is a tool of progress. It is the purpose given by the intelligent being that is important and not this tool in itself.

It is used to refer to the criticism of human attitude and behaviour in the CC's post and it means that if the humanity isn't so focused on progress and selected sciences is because it finds things that are more important and there is no way to show that this or another attitude towards progress is right.

The human view of itself is only important to the concerned human, if this being expresses the need to improve and bring the view of itself closer to reality then and only then progress and development becomes important.

So the entire proposition of spending money to enlighten and kill all stupidity in humans based on the statements below is one-sided.

Things aren't stable which hinders progress. Things aren't stable because extremely few people actually understand what humans are and how they function, society needs to be crafted in accordance with actual humans, not humanities idealized bullshit view of itself. Therefore (...)

There is no real need to craft the society in accordance with reality instead of idealism, other than the will of the said individuals to change themselves, which is an idea in itself.

This part proposes progress for the sake of enhancing and augmenting progress, which in itself is purposeless, if there is no human to require it and there is no way that this human could be called stupid because it doesn't require such a thing at that particular moment of its life.

 

[redbaron]

It is used to mean that science doesn't create new concepts and operates on the already existing ideas and advances to bring them closer to the reality.

On phone so will elaborate later. For now, short answer: no.

Bringing things closer to reality usually involves the creation of a new concept. Quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, asymptotic freedom and so on were all new concepts when they were introduced.

Scientific experiments fail more often than they succeed because they're usually new concepts with which no particular direction is indicated. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion science isn't used to create new concepts, when its entire premise is the creation of new concepts.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

On phone so will elaborate later. For now, short answer: no.

Bringing things closer to reality usually involves the creation of a new concept. Quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, asymptotic freedom and so on were all new concepts when they were introduced.

Scientific experiments fail more often than they succeed because they're usually new concepts with which no particular direction is indicated. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion science isn't used to create new concepts, when its entire premise is the creation of new concepts.

It is used to mean that science doesn't create new concepts and operates on the already existing ideas and advances to bring them closer to the reality.

Science also operates on the principles and these principles assume that there cannot be anything new from what already exists. There will be no type of being or matter if it didn't exist before, or wasn't created according to the known or yet unknown rules/principles. Science as such helps to discover and replicate the reality.

Yes, if you treat the above part in disconnection with the second piece that follows it is wrong. I have added that the discovery of new concepts occurs in accordance with reality. So there are no new concepts created, these concepts are discovered in the reality.

 

[redbaron]

So there are no new concepts created, these concepts are discovered in the reality.

Okay, a matter of perspective then. The concept of evolution is not new to the universe, it's new to humans. What's significant about this observation?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Okay, a matter of perspective then. The concept of evolution is not new to the universe, it's new to humans. What's significant about this observation?

As insignificant as about anything that could be said on the topic. While as I said this obvious observation was used to support my response to CC, which you have "intercepted", which is not wrong because I might have been clearer and more concise considering the simplicity of the matter at hand.

 

[redbaron]

Sure, I actually asked because I could see you weren't trying to promote the idea as a shortcomimg of science or anything. I was curious to hear what motivates you to point it out - I kind of took CC's post as though it was partially tongue-in-cheek. I can't tell if he's being completely serious or not so I just give the benefit of the doubt.

I like discussions relating to the limitations/application of science when done without pretense towards making a value judgment towards it.

Some people have science boners as big as some people have anti-science ones. Which kind of misses the point of science in the first place.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think you are being overly judgemental, your posts in this thread required my attention, because of their final and set in stone nature.

I suggest you consider before you call something bullshit.
You yourself have not brought forward anything else than your judgemental opinion.
If you do not like my view on that matter, don't call my post bullshit.
Rather, use silence and turn away.

I propose a view that no tool is purposeful, tools are created to satisfy a need, to help reach some purpose.

The cost is never nothing, I can easily say that what you post is illogical, you should rethink what you have posted.


All you are trying to judge me thinking "im so cool to diss science". I don't care if you are a nerd and you felt touched by what I posted. I think that if you are a nerd you should have some pride, regardless, you have 0 final evidence and yet you started to toy with me having your own hands tied at the beginning.

Actually just to make that clear, don't put such things I didn't post forward, as I consider it inconvenient to discuss with you or respect you as a person, when I am met with such an emotional and yet inconsiderate towards me response.

I suggest, you either back out and rethink what you have posted, or at the very least agree that what you have begun will either result in a pointless defense of undefendable and unprovable claims of either of us, or in us ignoring ourselves.
I wouldn't want to create a situation in which we ignore each other, I think that you may have some valuable future posts that I might consider replying to and maybe interacting together in a more valuable way, than simply judging and fighting for ground.

I also think that your suggestion will have more power and helpful meaning if it will be backed by value and intellect.

Now that it is more understandable let me explain why have I posted this
It was a direct response in a similar manner to this piece of the post:

Do you see how closed, shortsighted this part is? I disagree that there is any reason other than individual human will to get rid of stupidity. My view is an acceptance of the situation and your post seems to be attacking or showing human condition and behaviour as relatively "bad" or "inferior"

I responded in kind, arguing reactionism to balance the image or view on the matter.

I don't intend to defend reactionism as I don't personally agree with it, I also don't agree with pure transhumanism and progressivism and as such, my response was a kind of inviting or question directed at you, that you seem to have redirected to your senseless attribution to my person and to my personal views and values, which is negative and unconstructive in itself.


No if you want to criticise my reactionism, or assert that I am reactionist, that I hold something against science, you should dissect my post and point out what parts made you think so.

Instead of simply continuing your silly judgement of my person and transferring it to my second post in which I present an entirely different view that I would like to be discussed, not attached to my person. Call it strawman.

After these two posts I have a feeling that you either don't want to discuss with me, which is irrational when based on the response you provided, or you felt that your post (which I didn't even assume was your standpoint), was your real standpoint on the matter and you felt attacked and decided to put me down.

If the latter was the case, I suggest you do this in a more logical and constructive way next time, while by no means could it be my intention that created this situation.


Great, we seem to agree on this.

Stability and progress are interconnected. Also I would add that status quo and fruition does not only relate to the "tried and true methods" but also the need for consumption, rest, entertainment and experiences, that not necessarily can be related to progress for the sake of perfection.

Oh, I see one thing.
There would be stability if there wasn't a lack of fruition, something I'd call everlasting stability without progress. Or maybe you can rephrase what you meant.

The tone of my first post was ironic. Still it's more or less right in that far too little is spent on science considering what it has hitherto yielded us, especially when it comes to fields concerning humans, a failure to prioritize the understanding of humans is just what might lead to a premature destruction of our species. In any case if your post following my intentionally overly bitter and anger one was a reactionary post then we might not really be all that much in disagreement.

We are primates whose packs are now nations, and whose spears are now atom-bombs. Yet we still pictures ourselves as rational and just, despite our evolutionary origin being known to us. The limit drawn between ones own pack and another is now a limit which separates millions of people so that we lose compassion for and gain the ability to kill millions without feeling remorse. Because these brains of ours are still stuck in hunter/gatherer-mode. It's atoms bombs now, but who knows what the future might bring? Unless we understand ourselves so that we can control ourselves, then we might eventually create a tool too powerful for an ape wield.

And going on to tools, of course no tool is meaningful, but we have an innate striving to master and to expand, the process of doing so is experienced as meaningful because of the way we are shaped. This is meaning in the true sense of the word, not some abstract overarching purpose. This meaning possesses some plasticity however, if we evolve our society into ones were prestige hinges not on power and individual success (as in contemporary societies where ideas and ideals are tied to ones person so closely that any form of discourse will cause personal insult, where being offended is something made use of as if though were it a counterargument, thus effectively reducing discourse to social interaction, thereby diluting its purpose) but on that which may counteract the negative sides of being human, then we'd have a brighter future ahead of us. The whole view of Science as pointless and as missing out on the whole picture stems from the fact that people view it as if it were a substitute for philosophy or religion when it is a method.

In any case I can't agree with you when you make the case that science can never create anything new due to the principles by which it operates. Sure that may seem the case, but when actually look at history that is simply not the case. Tons of the insights produced by science are such that they could not have been imagined in the past nor could they have been produced by other means such as through philosophy. Indeed, it has thus far been the case that philosophy and other fields follow suit behind science, incorporating it's discoveries. Relativity is one example. So in a sense, science serves these other fields, despite the fact that the results of scientific investigations are in a position of ontological primacy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Progress is usually considered more important than stability by NJs.
Stability is usually considered more important than progress by NJs.

If life was better with only one, then societies composed exclusively of one type, would have become dominant via evolution. Evolution has made societies where SJs are a majority, but not the totality, the dominant form, because they are the most adapted. Ergo, the most successful paradigm is mostly stability, and some progress, approximately 75% stability and 25% progress.

You can't measure evolutionary success like that. We are successful as a species (or as genes, but then we aren't talking about ourselves anymore) and our species contains all of the types. That SJ's are proportionally more common than NJ's does not make them more "successful" because there are no N or S subspecies. If you remove NJ's then perhaps SJ's will die out as well. One could say that the proportionality of types IS the most successful, but not a set of types within that proportionality.

If what you proposed was the case then the less common types would've gone extinct.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The tone of my first post was ironic.

I understood that it wasn't too serious, that's why my initial response wasn't a complete view.

We are primates whose packs are now nations, and whose spears are now atom-bombs. Yet we still pictures ourselves as rational and just, despite our evolutionary origin being known to us.

This is perfectly fine, rationality and justice are terms created by humans and for humans to do whatever they want with them. If there are humans that cause a fallacy or a crime and then call themselves rational or just, it is perfectly fine to do so, because usage isn't restricted by the evaluation of right and wrong or actual meaning.

The limit drawn between ones own pack and another is now a limit which separates millions of people so that we lose compassion for and gain the ability to kill millions without feeling remorse. Because these brains of ours are still stuck in hunter/gatherer-mode. It's atoms bombs now, but who knows what the future might bring? Unless we understand ourselves so that we can control ourselves, then we might eventually create a tool too powerful for an ape wield.

Again it is perfectly fine. If there will be a weapon that humans are intellectually or mentally unworthy of posessing then it would be fitting if this weapon brought about their extinction. The ability to end its existence at will is a great advancement from the instinctual animals that seek to preserve balance and life.

This is meaning in the true sense of the word, not some abstract overarching purpose. This meaning possesses some plasticity however, if we evolve our society into ones were prestige hinges not on power and individual success (as in contemporary societies where ideas and ideals are tied to ones person so closely that any form of discourse will cause personal insult, where being offended is something made use of as if though were it a counterargument, thus effectively reducing discourse to social interaction, thereby diluting its purpose) but on that which may counteract the negative sides of being human, then we'd have a brighter future ahead of us.

Bright future is no more valuable than the grim one. It is the human progress towards it that will make it real, every step in the direction that is right for each of us individually is important.

The whole view of Science as pointless and as missing out on the whole picture stems from the fact that people view it as if it were a substitute for philosophy or religion when it is a method.

Experimental and empirical science is a method, however the theoretical explanations and axioms may as well be treated similarly to religion or philosophy, as they require belief, something that empirical science doesn't need, it just happens as it is predicted.

In any case I can't agree with you when you make the case that science can never create anything new due to the principles by which it operates.

Our science only advances to discover and explain the principles by which the entire universe operates, or any universe it happens to describe for that matter.
As such, the principles and relations that order everything are already present and it is only up to humans and other manifestations of intellect to discover and make use of them. Also what will likely be the case is that the 4 dimensional realities will become quite easy to reproduce and simulate. In a hundred or several hundred years there might be entire 4 dimensional universes simulated with different principles where science will provide different specific explanations if it was applied. So I think that the progress of the intelligent understanding and discovering will move towards the higher dimensions and the interactions that directly influence these principles and whatever lies beyond.

Sure that may seem the case, but when actually look at history that is simply not the case. Tons of the insights produced by science are such that they could not have been imagined in the past nor could they have been produced by other means such as through philosophy.

As I have already mentioned, the laws and possibilities already exist, things only await humans to discover the right interactions to make things happen.
I would say that nothing, that is impossible, can be imagined. There will be not a sensory experience to be imagined, which science would find impossible in the future. A different thing is with descriptions and explanations, there may be practical descriptions of ideas that deny or break the principles of science, however this means that science has not developed enough to provide explanations and examples of how such an idea might be achieved.

Imagination of effects and concepts is entirely grounded in reality. It is the lack of knowledge and resources that denies and ridicules the new visions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I understood that it wasn't too serious, that's why my initial response wasn't a complete view.

Ah okay, but are you arguing some form of relativism or nihilism?

This is perfectly fine, rationality and justice are terms created by humans and for humans to do whatever they want with them. If there are humans that cause a fallacy or a crime and then call themselves rational or just, it is perfectly fine to do so, because usage isn't restricted by the evaluation of right and wrong or actual meaning.

Again it is perfectly fine. If there will be a weapon that humans are intellectually or mentally unworthy of posessing then it would be fitting if this weapon brought about their extinction. The ability to end its existence at will is a great advancement from the instinctual animals that seek to preserve balance and life.

Bright future is no more valuable than the grim one. It is the human progress towards it that will make it real, every step in the direction that is right for each of us individually is important.

It is not that they are subjective human terms that is their fault it is that even within the closed system where they operate they are not used properly. We deem ourselves rational and just but if we actually look at what we do we are neither. The terms may have been created by and for humans, but our cognition is archaic, the morality that helped us survive as hunter/gatherers could kill us now. And again, most people do think that these things are meaningful and for them it isn't perfectly fine to be unjust or irrational. The thread is about progress vs stability after all, how do we choose any of them without presuming that they are desirable.. or that at least something has meaning?

You also say that our ability to destroy ourselves at whim is a great advancement, but by your own terms there can be no advancement, because advancement must have a direction, something to measure it by. And that in turn must be something of purpose, unless the term is used in a purely technical sense but that would defeat the purpose of the thread since progress and stability are presumed desirable within its context.

Experimental and empirical science is a method, however the theoretical explanations and axioms may as well be treated similarly to religion or philosophy, as they require belief, something that empirical science doesn't need, it just happens as it is predicted.

Our science only advances to discover and explain the principles by which the entire universe operates, or any universe it happens to describe for that matter.
As such, the principles and relations that order everything are already present and it is only up to humans and other manifestations of intellect to discover and make use of them. Also what will likely be the case is that the 4 dimensional realities will become quite easy to reproduce and simulate. In a hundred or several hundred years there might be entire 4 dimensional universes simulated with different principles where science will provide different specific explanations if it was applied. So I think that the progress of the intelligent understanding and discovering will move towards the higher dimensions and the interactions that directly influence these principles and whatever lies beyond.

As I have already mentioned, the laws and possibilities already exist, things only await humans to discover the right interactions to make things happen.
I would say that nothing, that is impossible, can be imagined. There will be not a sensory experience to be imagined, which science would find impossible in the future. A different thing is with descriptions and explanations, there may be practical descriptions of ideas that deny or break the principles of science, however this means that science has not developed enough to provide explanations and examples of how such an idea might be achieved.

Imagination of effects and concepts is entirely grounded in reality. It is the lack of knowledge and resources that denies and ridicules the new visions.

It's not like what you are saying is wrong. Science is by no means perfect, but what's the alternative? We've learned a lot by doing science, and there's no sign that we've exhausted its potential yield either. Judging by how things are now, I'd say that if we ever end up finding a replacement or alternative to science that replacement will be the result of science, perhaps indirectly but nevertheless following a scientific discovery.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You also say that our ability to destroy ourselves at whim is a great advancement, but by your own terms there can be no advancement, because advancement must have a direction, something to measure it by. And that in turn must be something of purpose, unless the term is used in a purely technical sense but that would defeat the purpose of the thread since progress and stability are presumed desirable within its context.

It is important as an option, as every discovered option is a success of our progress.

The ability of self-extermination is an advancement from the inability to do so.

Similarly the ability to treat smallpox and reduce the mortality is a step up from our ability to pray for a cure to the heavens, now we have both of these options instead of one, so it is an advancement.

I don't say that these advancements are good overall, these advancements are good in the area of progress, because they mean that there was a breakthrough or a major success, the usage and new options allow the individuals to choose from them, so it is positive as long as there is an individual choice.

My standpoint here is a blend of relativism, realism and individual agency, regardless of the unknown determinist, or not, nature of the decisions.

 

[scorpiomover]

One could say that the proportionality of types IS the most successful,

That was what I wrote.

That SJ's are proportionally more common than NJ's does not make them more "successful"

Yes, because that's exactly how evolution works. The more adapted a group is to the environment, the more successful they are, the more they have a chance to breed, and the more of them that exist. The less adapted a goup is to the environment, the less successful they are, the less they have a chance to breed, and the less of them that exist.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Sorry Scorpiomover I misread your post and ended up strawmanning

@Blarraun:

The difference between treating small-pox and the way we might destroy ourselves is that the latter could happen by accident or on the whim of very few people. I see what you mean when you say that having the option is a step forward though, and I agree that it is. However, I'd say it's a risk not an option at the moment, still there is progress in that too in a sense of course but still.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You can mistreat smallpox by accident too.

I think that when there is a war or mass-extinction, it most likely would happen because of the conscious decisions made by organisations, militaries that decided to use WMD's, wage wars, spread viruses etc.

While most of the mankind would be denied the choice in this matter, only the select few would decide on that, it is similar to the select few that can decide to administer the treatment of smallpox or not.

However, the rest of the populace gives power and support to the ruling and to the doctors, so it is not disconnected.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's not like what you are saying is wrong. Science is by no means perfect, but what's the alternative?

So when people only had horses, you think that the best thing to do was to say "Horse-drawn travel is by no means perfect. But what's the alternative?" So we might as well just stick to horses, and give up on progress?

The essential issue being raised, is that if progress is a good thing, then the way to progress the most, is to improve the methods we use to progress, as by progressing those methods, everything we try to progress will automatically progress more than if we had just stuck to the existing methods. Thus, the most progressive way to progress, is to improve on the concept of progress itself, and then to improve on the methods we use to progress. That's where the greatest progress will be.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So when people only had horses, you think that the best thing to do was to say "Horse-drawn travel is by no means perfect. But what's the alternative?" So we might as well just stick to horses, and give up on progress?

But at the time of horse carriages there was not a concept of such progress.

Progress happened because of the ingenious individuals that happened to succeed at spreading their ideas to the wider community.

So when people only had horses, or a simple idea of science, for them it was the best way and they reached the period of stability on that matter, because instead of being concerned with this problem, they focused on other areas of their lives.

A progress then would begin for them, when they started to breed horses to make them better at certain tasks, clearly catering for the growing need of the improved transportability, constitution, etc.

You can constantly think about improving, but it requires testing and finding new ideas that are an improvement from the previous methods, which is not always possible.

 

[Cherry Cola]

So when people only had horses, you think that the best thing to do was to say "Horse-drawn travel is by no means perfect. But what's the alternative?" So we might as well just stick to horses, and give up on progress?

The essential issue being raised, is that if progress is a good thing, then the way to progress the most, is to improve the methods we use to progress, as by progressing those methods, everything we try to progress will automatically progress more than if we had just stuck to the existing methods. Thus, the most progressive way to progress, is to improve on the concept of progress itself, and then to improve on the methods we use to progress. That's where the greatest progress will be.

Lol that's not even close to the same thing. Science gets us progress like nothing else so far, but ofc it should be abandoned if a superior method is found. But what would that be? How would you improve science or replace it? Unless there's an alternative there's not much to do is it?

We can't really just say fuck science and magically come up with something better, just like those people riding horses couldn't summon cars from the future just because those cars were a lot better than their poor horsies.

 

[tRand]

This thread seems to have strayed from the topic a bit, which seems to be about Rousseau’s arguments about progress and stability. Nonetheless, I think some of the general remarks above are interesting and can be better understood in light of Rousseau’s critique of modern civilization.

Rousseau was criticizing the Enlightenment belief that scientific progress necessarily enhances the general happiness of mankind. He does not argue that scientific progress is incapable of producing effects that satisfy human wants and desires. Rather, he is critical of the way it produces and shapes those wants and desires.

The primary justification for scientific progress, is that it provides the most effective way to maximize pleasure and reduce pain for the greatest number of people. For Rousseau, a society that merely seeks pleasure, may produce a great amount of wealth and luxury, but it also produces a great amount of vice and dissatisfaction. Such a pursuit instills a sense of greed and indolence in the minds of most people, while undermining the virtues that come from moderation and discipline. What’s worse is that it is incapable of reaching an end, because with every new invention there comes a new desire. This is easy to see in today’s society, where every time a new cell phone or game console is released, people are suddenly filled with the desire to have it. Therefore, new sources of pleasure and pain are perpetually being created and re-created, producing an endless source of dissatisfaction with ones present circumstances.

These are a few of the ways in which Rousseau believes modern civilization just ends up enslaving men to new and more powerful masters. So, what we ordinarily think of as progress, is contradictory in its effects and is based on a fundamental misconception of the human "good."

 

[scorpiomover]

But at the time of horse carriages there was not a concept of such progress.

The concept of science had been around since the Ancient Greeks. The actual idea of developing things further had been around long before. Anyway, it was close to 400 years between the Scientific Revolution and the horseless carriage.

Lol that's not even close to the same thing. Science gets us progress like nothing else so far,

Baseless assumption. Sounds like you went to a school and just accepted what your teachers told you, and haven't yet questioned it.

If you've questioned the assumption, and proved it true, then you can prove it to others. List everything that's ever been around, and the developments that resulted from them, and then count up science's achievements compared to other things.

but ofc it should be abandoned if a superior method is found. But what would that be? How would you improve science or replace it?

Are you asking rhetorically? Or do you really believe that it might be possible to improve upon science, and you'd like some suggestions?

Unless there's an alternative there's not much to do is it?

The point of science, is that you can improve scientifically, by thinking up alternatives and testing each of them, until one turns out to improve upon the existing. If we can't do that, then we're not much good at science, are we?

We can't really just say fuck science and magically come up with something better, just like those people riding horses couldn't summon cars from the future just because those cars were a lot better than their poor horsies.

Even in the Bible, it says they floated major logs down from Lebanon to Israel, because it was way faster than dragging them along in horse-drawn wagons. That was already better than horses, and that was thousands of years before the car.

So, what we ordinarily think of as progress, is contradictory in its effects and is based on a fundamental misconception of the human "good."

Someone once pointed out to me, that what people usually mean by "good" is what feels good to them. For instance, most people who say drugs are bad, have no experience of them, little or no understanding of the effects of illegal drugs on the chemistry of the brain, and so have no solid reason to think that drugs are harmful, other than they've heard authority figures say drugs will kill them so often, that they're terrified, and just thinking about drugs makes them feel bad. It's usually not about what is reasonable, but about our feelings and our emotional responses to thinking about those things.

 

[tRand]

Someone once pointed out to me, that what people usually mean by "good" is what feels good to them. For instance, most people who say drugs are bad, have no experience of them, little or no understanding of the effects of illegal drugs on the chemistry of the brain, and so have no solid reason to think that drugs are harmful, other than they've heard authority figures say drugs will kill them so often, that they're terrified, and just thinking about drugs makes them feel bad. It's usually not about what is reasonable, but about our feelings and our emotional responses to thinking about those things.

One does not need to understand how drugs effect the chemistry of the brain to say they have bad effects on a person's life. For instance, if a person ends up in jail for using drugs or overdoses and dies or gets into a car accident or steals from their family members to buy more drugs, it is reasonable to say that drugs were not very good for them. Would it be more reasonable to claim that in spite of all of this, drugs are still good, because they produce some beneficial chemical reaction in the brain?

I'm not sure if this is actually a criticism of Rousseau. I think he would agree with you, in part. The problem with modern society is that its conception of the "good" is based on the naturalistic fallacy -- i.e. what feels pleasurable to me is good; what feels painful to me is bad. However, people's appetites for pleasure are insatiable. When society seeks to perpetually increase the amount and quality of resources to satisfy our desires for what feels good, it merely creates more desires that we then seek to satisfy. Additionally, it doesn't cultivate genuine human virtues, which allow human's to achieve contentment and better social interactions.