Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under. I love those who do not know how to live […] for they are those who cross over." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Strauss’ magnum opus on Nietzsche’s seminal work might make good listening for this discussion)

It's Philosophy Friday™ (Filosofy Friday? Philosophy Phriday?)! Let’s start off by answering an ostensibly simple question: Is mankind an end in of itself, or just an interim between animal and something greater? There are a few dimensions to the question, so I’m going to strip it apart and ask particular questions. Also I’m going to interject what some philosophers, scientists, artists, etc might think, and you can agree or disagree with those perspectives.

Is man/mankind an end in of itself… I believe an individual person can choose for themselves the reasons they live for and what virtues to live by. That said, there are common virtues that nearly all cultures share; so if there are good qualities to pursue (which is up to debate), and those qualities are universal (ie they apply to all individuals), then there is a greater end to which the whole species should be collectively moving towards (which is everybody embodying those virtues). What are these “universal” values? Can we name them all? Who decided on them; in fact, did anyone decide on them at all or are they natural (ie evolved into our species)?

Aristotle argued that there are virtues that exist as ideals, and that a good man strives to see such virtues embodied in himself. The greeks had the concept of eudaimonia, which (among many other things) was the happiness one experienced by approaching moral ideals through ethical actions; is a man’s “end” the achievement of virtuous ideals in his lifetime? Friedrich Nietzsche argued (quite infamously) that there is an “overman” or Übermensch, a man who can decide all moral virtues for himself and is not beholden to superstitions to know what to do with his life. Do you believe in the Übermensch? Can we all be the “overman”, or is it only possible for select individuals with the prerequisite intelligence, passion, etc? Søren Kierkegaard’s work (specifically on subjectivism) is the cornerstone of existentialist thinking and I recommend looking into it if you want another perspective (unfortunately I’ve already written too much).

Is man an interim between animal and something greater… We should all be familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution, though I think many people have misconceptions about what it actually says (especially concerning the topic at hand); there is no thing that is “more evolved” than another thing in its era, and evolution does not have an “end” to which it is striving. Life’s only purpose is life itself. It seems according to Darwinist thinking, there is no greater “end” to which man is approaching; yet Darwinism has been used (or misused, to be accurate) to justify eugenics at the beginning of the early 20th century, whose ideological goal was to improve the human race. As we experienced first-hand in last week’s discussion on what seperates man from animal, there is some aspect of humans that makes us unlike any other lifeform on Earth; does mankind have an “end” that transcends the process of evolution? Transhumanism is a movement to improve the human condition through technology (paraphrasing from Wikipedia) and seeks to “elevate” mankind to a greater end beyond what nature/evolution has provided for us so far. They believe in unlocking the posthuman; is it the purpose of technology to end mankind and foster a new, greater kind of human? Christians believe that life is just a preliminary to eternal paradise (or eternal punishment) after death; so to them, is the “end” of man to join together with God in heaven?

I ask you to consider what you personally feel about the idea that human beings have an “end” (ie something greater) to strive for? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Some would argue that kind of thinking leads to eugenics and death camps, while others argue that kind of thinking is second nature to us considering we’re told constantly by others to exercise, learn, live ethically, work hard, etc.

And finally, do you think you better yourself everyday, and if so, then how? I like to think I do, as I try every week to read (learning new ideas), hike (appreciating nature), run (improving my health), socialize (fostering relationships), watch a movie (appreciating art), etc; am I actually bettering myself, or is all the stuff I do basically masturbation (ie does nothing to actually achieve any greater end)? Even if those things do improve me as an individual, am I doing my part to help mankind? Should I also be giving to charity, teaching children, growing food for others, etc? And by improving myself, am I improving mankind on its journey to something greater? You can ask yourself these questions or use me and my habits as an example.

I have a metric shit ton of more questions to consider, like the way “genius” plays in man’s greatness, but there’s already too much on the table so I’ll save them for later. Also, I’m going to be pretty busy today but I’ll keep track of the discussion from my phone (and try to interject when I can), but I’ll be back in full force when I can sit down with my laptop later tonight.

#PHILOSOFRIDAY

It's both, we don't exist for any specific purpose (apparently that terrifies people) and we're definitely not in control of our own evolution, so obviously we're an interim. Every species is an interim until the end of the world.

Those universal qualities are a lot more universal than some people are going to want to think. For ease of discussion, I'm going to limit myself to a few key values: peace, freedom, dignity, and justice. Nobody came up with those ideas, they came up with the words, but those ideas are also evidently universal throughout the animal kingdom, they evolved into most every species.

Peace and freedom are obvious.

If the animal kingdom didn't value peace, they would constantly be at war with species different from their own, especially species that represent their main food source. We're absolutely shit at peace, we go to war over disagreements, animals never go to war, they're perfectly capable of coexisting while only taking what's needed to live. Animals have the ultimate sense of freedom, they're free to do whatever they like, they're free to keep what they gather or earn for themselves and their family, we're bound by laws we didn't ask for prescribed by a governmental system who takes a part of our share because that's what the law prescribes. Instead of a peaceful and freely entered symbiotic relationship, we deal with political parasites.

We consider human dignity to be the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued and respected and treated well. How else could you describe animals who come together in large groups to breed, for example? Females walk through the herds freely, they are not attacked, they are not forced to breed. Males respect and seek female consent during mating. They approach other males in confrontation, yet rarely do dominance matches end in injury. They respect each other's dignity, they value their lives, even when they come together to fight for breeding rights (in some species, whole local populations come together to decide which ONE SOLE male will breed with ALL the females. Any other male could be like FUCK THIS I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU and find a willing mate that season, but none of them do. They respect and value their culture which has deemed them unworthy this year.)

I'm really struggling answering any of these questions without relating it back to the animal kingdom, I simply can not separate humans from animals or hold the belief that we've got something special that they don't when anyone with eyes can see they're nearly exactly the same as us, just a different species.

Going back to "we don't exist for any particular reason", a man's end is his literal end, no matter what he has accomplished or not accomplished, how virtuous he is or isn't, how happy or sad his life has been, whether he's lived to the fullest or died very young. Existentialists make no sense to me, we're not super special rational snowflakes with a self-designated purpose to fulfill in our otherwise completely irrational world. If life really had an inherent meaning, you wouldn't have to decide on it for yourself. The point of life is to live.

{ Some would argue that kind of thinking leads to eugenics and death camps, while others argue that kind of thinking is second nature to us considering we’re told constantly by others to exercise, learn, live ethically, work hard, etc. }

Do we have to be told to live ethically, work hard, etc? If we weren't told those things by society would we not instinctively be doing them, as the rest of the planet's inhabitants manage? I'm pretty confident we would.

You're not "bettering yourself", you're just living. You're waking up and doing what humans do. How you individually choose to value certain activities or information over other things has no baring on your life's end, reading a book is not inherently worth more than masturbating, donating billions of dollars to charity is not inherently worth more than being a billionaire while still paying your employees minimum wage.

I put forth that you can only genuinely make a ripple in the world, make your life hold special significance, achieve an "end", is when you start negatively impacting the rest of the world. We're not special because we're smarter than everything else on the planet or because we contribute to it positively, we're special because we're the only ones forcing everything else on the planet out of existence. Every other animal, plant, rock, drop of water on this planet positively contributes to its long success every single second of every single day. Except us.

"Do you believe in the Übermensch?"
no, it just sounds like nietschze thought one day some impossibly perfect person would be born and everyone should either strive to be that person, or just fuck and have children until one of your babies ends up being jesus.

I'm going to try to keep my thoughts really brief because I'm certain the op shop is about to close and I need to get in there and take full advantage of its 8-for-$5 deal on books lest I'm left with nothing to entertain myself with for the next month or so.

Is mankind an end in of itself, or just an interim between animal and something greater?

No matter what path humanity takes, we are destined to be only one stepping stone of many. If we survive, become space-faring, and develop a reasonably stable interplanetary empire, then we'll either end up evolving naturally or of our own engineered accord once our technology is sufficiently advanced. If we wipe ourselves out and take a good chunk of the planet with us, we'll be the cause that led to one of Earth's many catastrophic extinction events. The idea of humanity simply continuing to exist, unchanging, is inconceivable.

However, I disagree with both premises offered in your question. We are not an end, as I have explained above. Yet nature does not care for subjective judgments such as how "great" something is. If we bathe the earth and ourselves in nuclear Armageddon, then that would obviously be "bad" for our species, yet also a godsend to the species and environment of a post-human earth. Humanity is a stepping stone and nothing else; we are not an egg destined to hatch something objectively "great".

does mankind have an “end” that transcends the process of evolution?

If you're referring solely to organic evolution, then yes, quite likely. I fully reject the notion that we are destined to never have control over our own evolutionary process. Even without non-organic augmentation/Posthumanism, our ever-increasing mastery of biology will one day allow us to play God with our species' future. Eventually -- and in the near future -- the impact of evolution on human beings will be negligible at best. There is also the argument that the nature of our modern society, and how it cares for the weak, has already caused this effect to occur.

However, as I mentioned above, the idea of engineered evolution should not be ignored. In fact, I see it as inevitable. Perhaps, in a hundred years' time, humans will discard their bodies entirely and live in digital immortality. Even then, however, we will still be upgraded with the latest software and hardware, and so on. To summarize my answer to your question: we will transcend the process of natural evolution. But it will not be our end.

is the “end” of man to join together with God in heaven?

If you hold the Bible as true, then of course. There will eventually be a day of reckoning where humanity will cease to dwell in the mortal realm and be sent to heaven or hell (the existence and nature of those two destinations are up for debate, but the fundamental idea remains the same). The Bible makes no mention of anything occurring after the union of man and God in the afterlife, so it's safe to assume that it will be the final destination of humanity.

All of this rests on whether the Christian faith is true, of course, which is an entirely separate debate.

Looks like Philosofriday was a bit of a bust… Next time I'll put up posters around town saying FREE BEER and the hyperlink written beneath, then we’ll be in business!

@lisalombs: I think in my big spiel up top I brought up the "what separates humans from animals" thread from last week, which I think is highly relevant in this topic. In fact, many would argue that humans really are just animals (and shitty ones at that, what with things like war, pollution, New Jersey, etc) because they have some conception of the “end” of man as a bridge to a greater creature, whereas you’re suggesting our great “end” would actually be a return to our beginning (as animals who can cohabitate the Earth sustainably). Have you ever read the 1975 utopian novel Ecotopia? Something tells me you’d like it, though I’m afraid it would offend the conservative streak in you.

You espouse on how important freedom is, yet you criticize existentialist thinking for seeking greater meaning in life; what good is freedom without higher purpose/meaning to one’s choices? You say animals are free, but they’re not nearly as free as humans: for example, a lion lacks the mental capacity and biological functions to choose vegetarianism. It’s a carnivore, and it has to be, yet human beings are capable of choices; some would argue it is those choices which guide us to a greater “end”. We can choose by what standards we survive, by practicing ethics and committing ourselves to endeavours that increase the utility of our species: I doubt many predators consider the ethical consequences of killing their prey when they’re hungry (and please, spare me the bizarre trivia you have about how “the species Biggus Sharkus chooses not to eat the species Toothbrushus Fishus because the latter cleans the former’s teeth” or whatever), in fact I doubt many predators even comprehend the concept of death the way we do.

You ask a very thought-provoking question: do people really have to be told to live ethically, work hard, etc? While I agree that we do these things instinctively (actually “implicitly” is a better word), many people think that humans are generally stupid, weak, and cruel, needing leadership and depending on others to succeed. I have more to say about your vicious attack on my way of life and your nearly nihilistic outlook on what matters in this world, but this post is already too large, so maybe some other time.

Quick Questions: You say we're not in control of our evolution, which is true right now, but as Particle Mare points out below it's highly unlikely we'll never control our evolutionary process; when homo sapiens stops being homo sapiens (and starts being homo superior, posthuman, etc), haven't we by definition achieved something greater? When we throw off the shackles of natural selection and are capable of designing every phenotype and facet of our own genes, aren’t we intrinsically better than every other animal that lives or dies simply according to nature? And slightly off-topic, but is there a particular reason you love animals so much? It’s funny how someone like you who is, no offense, a bit brash when dealing with people is also so sympathetic to animals.

BTW: I made this thread because I wussed out at starting a Sharia thread (actually I'm busy in Annapolis all weekend and I didn't have time to prep such a big discussion); while I could get around to it at some point, I'd appreciate it immensely if somebody could make a Sharia thread this Sunday? There's a certain crazy person here who is very good at filling her posts with butt-loads of sources (something far too boring for me to do), and I know she has colorful things to say about Islamic extremism, so perhaps she wouldn't mind doing me a solid and makin' the "Fuck Sharia" thread while I'm out of town?

@roarshack: Succinct! Though I do take slight issue with your wording, since someone trying to birth the new Christ by having babies with a man demonstrates a slight misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding Christ’s conception (the ostensibly immaculate part, of course).

@Particle Mare: Even if you weren’t pressed for time, it’s best to keep philosophizing brief lest you make titanic-sized posts like my own… If we are so obviously a stepping stone as you say, why is it that we (as a species, or a country, or individuals, or whatever) can’t agree on what end to strive for? In fact, I would argue the vast majority of humanity is content to remain humans, pursuing human values (rather than imagining some kind of posthuman), and might even abhor the idea that there is such a thing (especially if technology is the bridge, as the popularity of dystopian fiction may indicate).

Though I don’t like to inject my own personal opinions when considering these kinds of things, I full-heartedly believe that digital transcendence is the next “big” step. As you point out, there’s always room to improve the hardware and such, but I bet eventually we’ll reach the point at which every posthuman intelligence will be like a God in their own simulated universe… Though all this kind of speculation begs the question of whether or not the homo sapien mind is prepared for such power (illusory as it is). You might not believe that’s the “end”, but I’d argue whatever lifeforms rule those sufficiently-advanced realities will be a far cry from what the modern human being is now. Bet you didn’t predict that, Criswell!

I always toss out some Christian stuff but it seems no one takes the bait… Anyway, I think you have a great perspective on the larger picture, but what about the smaller things? Are you helping our species along it’s inevitable path to posthuman? Since you know such ends are in the far distant future, don’t you feel compelled to achieve something greater in the virtues you could embody within your own lifetime? Are you motivated to live ethically because you believe you’re approaching virtuous ideals, or because forces around you make it too inconvenient to live unethically (eg the police tend to catch people who steal, therefore you don’t steal)?

Thanks for your thoughts, errrybody!

People here don't like to discuss opinions in an open format like this (especially when they have to read through so much of yours first), they want arguments with sources so they can Google the topic really quickly and link you to 10 year old studies written by the same team who published the new research you're trying to talk about, because obviously the only way to talk about anything is to "prove" each others opinions "wrong"~

Open format discussion is my preference though, so keep it coming. :)

{ Have you ever read the 1975 utopian novel Ecotopia? }

I haven't, but the description sounds really interesting and I love to read. I'll pick up a copy when I go to the library later. & there are a lot of issues I don't lean conservative on btw, I'm pretty center-right, but the hot topics in politics (fiscal/foreign policy) that get discussed most often are issues I lean firmly conservative towards.

{ for example, a lion lacks the mental capacity and biological functions to choose vegetarianism. It’s a carnivore, and it has to be, yet human beings are capable of choices }

Cats are obligate carnivores, they'd literally die (like all the housepets when vegans try to convert them) if they didn't eat meat, so that's not a very fair comparison. The only reason we have that choice is because we're omnivores, like bears, and there are plenty of omnivores who choose their diets according to preference. How many birds are omnivores that prefer plants to actually hunting anything? Hummingbirds, emus, backyard robins, "do I use the energy to hunt insects and rodents or do I stick with easily obtainable seeds and nectar?" Wild boars, squirrels, rhinos, many species of monkey, etc etc, they're all free to eat whatever they want but they choose the veggie path of least resistance. Just like us, they're not bound to meat or plants by evolution.

{ I doubt many predators consider the ethical consequences of killing their prey when they’re hungry }

But they do. Even though they could easily take out any prey animal in the herd, they stick to the old and the weak. If they're solely driven by hunger, why not take the biggest? Why not take the first one you see? There's no predator alive who hunts in such an indiscriminate way. What's stopping them?

{ in fact I doubt many predators even comprehend the concept of death the way we do. }

They all grieve, they all know that death means life is over, and they emotionally respond to loss.

{ One study describes the grief and mourning in a wolf pack after the loss of the low-ranking omega female wolf, Motaki, to a mountain lion. The pack lost their spirit and their playfulness. They no longer howled as a group, but rather they "sang alone in a slow mournful cry." They were depressed -- tails and heads held low and walking softly and slowly -- when they came upon the place where Motaki was killed. They inspected the area and pinned their ears back and dropped their tails, a gesture that usually means submission. It took about six weeks for the pack to return to normal. }

Foxes (and tons of other animals) try to bury their dead by covering the bodies with leaves and branches and dirt. Animal funeral rituals are a lot more well known today. How can you doubt their understanding of death?

{ I have more to say about your vicious attack on my way of life and your nearly nihilistic outlook on what matters in this world, but this post is already too large, so maybe some other time. }

I didn't "viciously attack your way of life", I explained my view of it. I do all the same things you do, but to me that's not "bettering life", as if doing those specific hings inherently adds value to life, it's just living life the way you choose. Your way of life is not inherently better than someone who prefers to sit on their ass all day and collect government handouts instead of working, a bear who chooses to hunt fish in the river all day is not living a better way of life than the one who prefers to forage in the forest. You call it nihilism, I call it reality. So we don't exist to fulfill some higher purpose, who the fuck cares? Live your life and make sure it was worth living for you by the time it's over.

{ when homo sapiens stops being homo sapiens (and starts being homo superior, posthuman, etc), haven’t we by definition achieved something greater? }

That's adaption, we'll never be able to control or speed up our own evolution. Eugenics and technology can't change our species. edit to add on/clarify: unless the changes we make alter our DNA so greatly that a homo sapiens could no longer reproduce with "homo surperior", we're not changing/evolving our species. Adaptation is (generally) beneficial, so I certainly don't think we shouldn't strive to reach those super-human goals, but it's a fact that those goals do not represent man-made evolution.

We will have definitely achieved something, but who's to say it's "greater"? That's like people who say all our technology/etc now is "greater". Why is all the damage we've caused in establishing these things always ignored? How is draining the planet of the resources we need to survive longer than the next 100 years "greater"? Because now we can get online and talk about it, like this? Does that make us "greater" than the animals who manage to get on with their lives without destroying their habitats, just because they can't drive cars? To me, the way we as a species live on this planet makes us far "lesser", no matter how complex the math equations we solve get.

Maybe that's why I have more sympathy for animals than humans. Why should I have sympathy for creatures fully capable of comprehending the damage we're doing and the long term effect it has on our future, but who also refuse to adjust their lifestyle to make long term survival a reality? I expect us to know better, and when I'm shown repeatedly that we collectively don't, it kinda drains the empathy when things inevitably go wrong. I also really hate the egotistical WE R SPESHUL mindset, the only thing we're better at than the rest of the animal kingdom is being intelligent, and we sure don't seem to apply it very well.

also: yes, I will Sharia this place up on Sunday.

I recommend Ecotopia not only because it's interesting in of itself, but it also is seen as a sort of bible in a secessionist group on the Pacific coast called the Cascadia Movement who are seeking to create an eco-friendly nation out of Oregon, Washington, and parts of Canada. It has come up against a Libertarian movement to create a new state in the same region called Jefferson. The two groups, despite having similar goals, can't seem to merge Green politics with Libertarianism. Thinking about it, a fun discussion would be comparing various independence movements in America and all those funny microstates that are cropping up.

I'm pretty sure predators take down the old and weak (and extremely young) because the strongest is too much effort to actually catch; it's not ethics, it's efficiency.

You skirted around my question about freedom, and it relates back to your vicious attack (sarcasm) on my way of life. So a bear hunts in a river or forages in a forest, and neither is necessarily greater than the other, and I agree; that's what "freedom" is to an animal (choosing how to feed itself). But a human being can research the cure to a deadly plague, or build a home for the poor, or create some work of art that inspires emotions in millions, or risk their lives saving others in dire circumstances, or do any number of things that have a quantifiable effect on other people (and therefore on some part of the human race). Perhaps some of them are motivated by ideals of something greater, of maximizing utility or pursuing the virtues they believe to be right.

Don't ask me questions, I don't know anything! That's why I'm asking you questions! There has to be something humans will one day be capable of doing that can impress you… What if some day in the far future, our civilization has mastered genetic engineering and megaengineering to the point we can terraform a million worlds, giving birth to trillions of species that never would have been created had we not made their planets livable. That would be "great", right? So isn't any step we take (whether technological, societal, etc) towards that end a step towards something greater?

This might sound quaint, but it's not weakness to sympathize with people despite their faults. I think sympathy/empathy are mechanisms to deal with seeing flaws in others, as we know what it must be like and consequently seek to help them (as we would want them to help us if we were in their situation). Sympathy is the root of love, courage, friendship, society, and many other great things. It's not so bad to practice it, even as a simple courtesy.

I suppose that's as good a place as any to cap off the discussion, it was good!