Realism / Winslow Homer/ Sunset Fires
I have been batting about what I perceive as a lack of faith in science by a big chunk of the population and the corresponding reaction by those who still cling tightly to that faith.
Michael has been a huge help by writing several e-mails and comments regarding science. I am going to publish them here over the next couple of days.
Now this is not going to be a wholesale endorsement of Michael’s thoughts. There is much to agree with but much to disagree with in his statements. Most of the disagreements are in the realm of etymology and the specific meaning of words rather than the thoughts. At the end of the several days of presenting Michael’s thoughts, I will hopefully have prepared a devastating riposte that will leave all in awe and earn me great honors
So, on to Michael
Of course, I agree with the idea that the world needs to be saved from the effects of science; reference this from my book. (Note: Link is added by John)
If man is the only rational animal, how is man’s uniqueness expressed, other than by an irrational desire for endless growth? What is the evidence of man’s self-proclaimed rational superiority?
The answer is that man’s superiority is quite obviously evidenced by religion, science, and diplomacy.
RELIGION: Rationality allowed man to form and discard rational explanations involving vengeful gods a long time ago, while animals have yet to even come up with similar explanations.
SCIENCE: Man has used science – physics, chemistry, biology – to produce weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical, and biological. Only a rational entity could invent such weapons and have a reason to invent them (see diplomacy below).
DIPLOMACY: Only a rational entity could imagine the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which is credited by man with saving the world from science, up to now.
But allow me to present a different perspective based on the premise that humans would ultimately act the same and do the same sort of things regardless of the specifics - money or science, for example. Only the timespan and details would differ. The premise is simply that money, religion, and science are probably the most efficient means of mankind doing what mankind would ultimately do one way or another. Beyond this, instead of focusing on money – which is simply means – focus instead on profit. The essence of mankind is found in profit, not money itself. The issue is relativity as always. If I do not have more money than you, than I will be better some other way. Leave it to human rationality to figure out how and produce desires accordingly.
******
I had to stop - I found the article by Luisella Chiavenuto to be unreadable – technobabble (to me) which seems to complicate ideas that are not that complicated. One way to abuse science is to use specialist technical terms for no reason. Maybe it is the translation. If I understand, she is saying the same things about science that Whitehead, Russell, Einstein, etc. said 100 years ago.
By definition there can be nothing wrong with science, there can only be something wrong with people who use it to some end. She is blaming the wrong thing – making a scapegoat - for human nature.
IMO the same thing applies with the Francis of Assisi scapegoat of money – or at least Ugo’s interpretation that the saint blamed money itself, rather than greed. I think the essence of the issue was greed/relativity, not the means. This is significant because getting rid of money is no solution.
As an efficient means of exchange, what is wrong with the concept of money itself?
Money: If the problem is that humans get carried away and cannot control their desire for it, then what does that problem have to do with money itself? We can pass a law against abusing a drug, so we could pass a law against abusing money.
Science: What about science would be bad, if it were not used as means to profit? The answer is weapons. The absence of desire for profit would not rule out reasons for killing humans – reasons that stem from human rationality; for example religion. Religion is a product of human rationality – the highly regarded human rationality that is endlessly praised by humans.
If the desires of mankind are separated into those associated with the goal of being free of pain and hunger (like animals), versus all other desires, then the latter category are desires satisfied by profit, or by the elimination of some non-conforming religion, nation, etc. - whatever the entity is that humans get attached to using their rationality.
What I mean by the attached article from my book, is that all the modern criticism of money and science, is simply blaming a means – which just happen to be the means of this human era/epoch – rather than the end that will be arrived at one way or another due to the nature of humans; specifically, human rationality.
Regarding human desire for what money is means to:
I cannot think of a better plan to counter human tendency toward greed than Jesus’ plan, and the warnings from the son of God did not hold up, so there you go. Humans were so smart they invented capitalism and figured out a way to get around Jesus and pay their way into heaven using money! Next, they took a theory of Natural Selection from science and invented a theory of Manifest Destiny that gave them God’s permission to use slaves and exterminate humans who stood in the way of profits meant for God – or at least in the way of the portion of the profits going to support God.
Regarding the Appetitive Stimulus mentioned in the attached article:
The science of behaviorism defines an “appetitive stimulus”, which I argue apples only to humans. Appetitive stimulus means that there is no form of punishment other than not having something – the stimulus. So, for example, a well-educated behaviorist who has never missed a meal in their life, imagines that food is an appetitive stimulus to an animal, which is absurd, given that animals are willing to suffer pain to get food. This is science abstracted from reality which is not a new problem; rather, it is the essence of science. It is up to people to understand what science is.
My point is that animals do not overrule (via rational desires) their natural tendency to be sated (pain free and not hungry); thus, they do not accept risk or invest energy unless it is required to avoid physical punishment - pain or hunger. This is their goal because animals instinctively avoid these two phenomena. This does not mean that animals do not use intelligence and cleverness to achieve their goals, which can be difficult to achieve – or impossible for the 3,000 species/year going extinct. Profit to an animal is certainty – the ability to avoid risk.
To sum up:
To say that money and science cause problems for humans is correct; but to focus on money and science as the problem, is missing the point entirely.
Capitalism is not only causing problems; it is efficiently doing what something else will do in response to whatever idea Luisella or Ugo might come up with to affect what comes from science and money. Mankind is represented by the accumulative desires of the human race, and human rationality makes mankind an insatiable entity, which unfortunately provides nothing back to Nature in return for what it takes.
Today I see that entertainer Tucker Carlson is wondering on network news why we are not getting all wound up like him about the white race dying out. What could be a more obvious explanation, than the fact that he and people like him is what will go missing? There is no irony in the world of entertainment news because the entertainment is tailored to satisfy a certain desire in a certain human that happens to be the most profitable desire to satisfy at the moment.
Here is something else I saw today in the news headlines: Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called on President Biden to "destroy every Taliban fighter" near Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, until U.S. personnel are safe.
Biden is very old, how is he supposed to kill thousands of young, healthy Taliban fighters like Tom wants, especially when they have the momentum? Instead of sending an old man over there to destroy a bunch of people, a better idea might be to send the U.S. personnel to the U.S.
There are two reasons for Tom Cotton; profit and religion. Luckily for Tom and his aspirations, another religion does not like his religion or his desire for profit. I think that Tom’s mind would instantly go completely blank, if something did not oppose his religion or his desire for profit. Tom is a poster boy for human folly, a true entertainer in that respect.
The way to avoid being depressed by how humans use their rationality, is to be entertained by the folly of what humans do. There is nothing more ridiculous on earth, or even close, than a Tom Cotton human. People make fun of the Dodo bird; but Tom is infinitely more ridiculous.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
