It has to do with group altruism. For example, and in case its not obvious, that's why people who live in Ukraine may choose to risk sacrificing their lives for their country and for their countrymen. A few may even volunteer to go on suicide missions. What drives that type of altruism is survival of the group or 'tribe.' It is a sacrifice for something perceived as greater than oneself.
Um...
Evolution brought us altruism, which is one of the keys to the survival of our species.
You're welcome.
dixit Mark : "The science would seem to show otherwise. Moreover, altruism is seen in other animals besides humans."
Yes, for sure! That doesn't mean morality is not important in what Prasi is saying, but this is off topic in the precise subject Topic that involves us as a species (or more if the first topic question involves more than the human being's life meaning.). Prasi's saying is involving the subject in the angle of society history definition (cultures, ethnies, i.e. history of cultures related to individual ilustration at an age (of history, understading it as a non linear answer).
But if a meaning of Life (as Human Being) , the answers should be universal , understand : transcend culture and geography as we share now almost the same origins genes (what is not shared is not universal - Denisovian for instance- and a a very small part of that differences are irelevant and just poctual differences that doesn't matter : pigments of the skin, pilosity, small body differences, etc, that doesn't change the comon organic holistic).
So moral is only relevant as a culture because local (culture/time) and touch by history (things as cultures as well... what people do not want to see seeing life just at the level (time) of their life.
One should object universal things in the human being that transcend cultureS.
Yes, for sure! That doesn't mean morality is not important in what Prasi is saying, but this is off topic in the precise subject Topic that involves us as a species (or more if the first topic question involves more than the human being's life meaning.). Prasi's saying is involving the subject in the angle of society history definition (cultures, ethnies, i.e. history of cultures related to individual ilustration at an age (of history, understading it as a non linear answer).
But if a meaning of Life (as Human Being) , the answers should be universal , understand : transcend culture and geography as we share now almost the same origins genes (what is not shared is not universal - Denisovian for instance- and a a very small part of that differences are irelevant and just poctual differences that doesn't matter : pigments of the skin, pilosity, small body differences, etc, that doesn't change the comon organic holistic).
So moral is only relevant as a culture because local (culture/time) and touch by history (things as cultures as well... what people do not want to see seeing life just at the level (time) of their life.
One should object universal things in the human being that transcend cultureS.
Last edited:
this of course a subject where knowledge is involved. But as often it has to be illustrated with history, that involves non permit things as forums rules... not as a figth (basicly forbiden) but as illustrations in the sense of history of ideas (cultural part different between location but with a try of universal sharing, imho possible but science is what most is what we share). Btw the rules are not science proof here as they involve for the peace of the forum some illustrations limitations.
Alas but around a glass of what you want, it seems not the place to speak about philosophy and social sciences. It is ok as there is the consensus to speak about audio whatever the differences.
It is hard to write as a people with a wide intelectual knowledge vs focused technical people focussed on a technical very focussed audio (which is staying a science with a small part of culture hearing focused preferences) but it is staying ok as seen as a private place. Imho.
While I should confess, different cultures doesn't see the croos line at the same places (imo a question of culture and morality involved into it, which is different between cultures in a context of I-sharingf.. hey but that's a good challenge and it works when audio is involved.... and that is not onanism as I frequently am against the basic morality rules. But the guys behind are ok. Gruping is complex as is Society.
I love you all guys, you are positives (I mean + signal guys, pardon my english)
Alas but around a glass of what you want, it seems not the place to speak about philosophy and social sciences. It is ok as there is the consensus to speak about audio whatever the differences.
It is hard to write as a people with a wide intelectual knowledge vs focused technical people focussed on a technical very focussed audio (which is staying a science with a small part of culture hearing focused preferences) but it is staying ok as seen as a private place. Imho.
While I should confess, different cultures doesn't see the croos line at the same places (imo a question of culture and morality involved into it, which is different between cultures in a context of I-sharingf.. hey but that's a good challenge and it works when audio is involved.... and that is not onanism as I frequently am against the basic morality rules. But the guys behind are ok. Gruping is complex as is Society.
I love you all guys, you are positives (I mean + signal guys, pardon my english)
Last edited:
To clarify some things I was alluding to earlier, a brief excerpt from Haidt's book on the first five moral foundations (across the top row):
The sixth foundation, later added provisionally was: Liberty/oppression.
As can probably be seen, many different specific cultural moralities can develop and evolve upon the basic foundations that appear as the common underpinnings of human morality, at least according to Haidt's research. Of course this doesn't go into all the detail that the book brings, so it may be easy to misinterpret what is seen in such brief form.
Also, it shouldn't be presumed that all of the foundations are equal. They may be and often are weighted very differently in different particular moralities.
The sixth foundation, later added provisionally was: Liberty/oppression.
As can probably be seen, many different specific cultural moralities can develop and evolve upon the basic foundations that appear as the common underpinnings of human morality, at least according to Haidt's research. Of course this doesn't go into all the detail that the book brings, so it may be easy to misinterpret what is seen in such brief form.
Also, it shouldn't be presumed that all of the foundations are equal. They may be and often are weighted very differently in different particular moralities.
Last edited:
Well. I didn't read it yet. But paradigms are the sum until next evidences. Scientifical method through epistimology seems to transcend (is transcending) ponctual illustrations.
Hold on, please. Epistemology is from philosophy. Physical philosophy branched off a long time ago and became its own mostly separate thing, 'physical science.' Where the two still meet is in 'philosophy of science.' Its an important area to be sure, but we need to be careful about not conflating what have for the most part become different fields.
To get into moral foundations theory in a serious way will require some work. Reading the book and studying the end notes would be a good start.
At that point we might be prepared to knowledgably critique it.
To get into moral foundations theory in a serious way will require some work. Reading the book and studying the end notes would be a good start.
At that point we might be prepared to knowledgably critique it.
Last edited:
Hey guy. On hold yourself. I rule imo more epistomology than you. And philosophy even more (episto as a part of it) You really do not know about you are talking about. Are you doctor graduate ? So calm down friend. Believe me. There are bunch of BS here at cosmic level that is hard to belive, even so at first year of high school. Sorrry your illustration is poor and at this level please do not ask me why. I AM patient guy but here this is too much to educate. Do your homexork first (with external prof.)
. Sorry nothing personal, here we do not talk about DACs
. Sorry nothing personal, here we do not talk about DACs
Last edited:
What has philosophy accomplished in the last 20-years? Mostly it has become guys arguing about the meaning of words. There was a time when the greatest minds in the world were in philosophy. The philosophy of science is still important, I will agree. Students need to study it.
BTW, I had these sorts of arguments years ago with a philosopher. He recommended the book, "Incomplete Nature," by Deacon. I read it. It was written in such a way that certain words were undefined from the beginning. Only by studying the whole book could the meaning of certain newly coined words be deduced.
What my philosopher friend could not argue against was that despite how difficult the book was, and however provocative its implications might have been, there was nothing whatsoever actionable it it. IOW, it was as a practical matter useless.
You familiar with that one? Maybe something new and useful has since emerged?
EDIT: BTW, you may be surprised to know that Haidt started out with a degree in philosophy. His first book, "The Happiness Hypothesis," made many references to the subject. He is still influenced by what he learned during that period, before later making a name for himself as a cognitive psychologist.
BTW, I had these sorts of arguments years ago with a philosopher. He recommended the book, "Incomplete Nature," by Deacon. I read it. It was written in such a way that certain words were undefined from the beginning. Only by studying the whole book could the meaning of certain newly coined words be deduced.
What my philosopher friend could not argue against was that despite how difficult the book was, and however provocative its implications might have been, there was nothing whatsoever actionable it it. IOW, it was as a practical matter useless.
You familiar with that one? Maybe something new and useful has since emerged?
EDIT: BTW, you may be surprised to know that Haidt started out with a degree in philosophy. His first book, "The Happiness Hypothesis," made many references to the subject. He is still influenced by what he learned during that period, before later making a name for himself as a cognitive psychologist.
Last edited:
I do not see it in your posts and logics, if you re talking about yourself and did not read the illustrations btw. No ofense. I do not undetstand really few percents of the electrical rules even so I know really well what is epistimology. So pardon me if pedantic...just a (ugly) short cut.
diyiggy, I appreciate and respect what you do here. Not much into philosophy myself, except for philosophy of science which I feel is of great practical value. So, I find value in writings such as this: http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf
As far as more abstract philosophy, its interesting as an abstraction, but not necessarily more than that.
With regard to the work of Haidt in particular, you will have to read the book if you want to know what he means and how he knows what he knows. I can't tell you all that in one post.
As far as more abstract philosophy, its interesting as an abstraction, but not necessarily more than that.
With regard to the work of Haidt in particular, you will have to read the book if you want to know what he means and how he knows what he knows. I can't tell you all that in one post.
WOW - so many interesting & fascinating posts here.
I could point out that humans (and animals) are inherently 'selfish', dictated by the will to survive (encoded).
(yes, there odd exceptions)
So, I could say that:
A true & full understanding SYMBIOSIS is the meaning, but in fact, it is just a LEARNING.
(now in a theory)
For a perceivable Universe to exist (that has always existed), there is no beginning OR end.
We could say there is a start & finish, but they join in a moment that is less than a moment called: A BIG BANG.
For big bangs to be an eternal cyclical event, by function, there has to be at least ONE other imperceivable Universe.
(It is impossible for me to say how many 'universes' exist, but the minimum is 2)
*There is no symmetry between 'universes', because that would = zero motion.
Part of the theory is that ALL black holes go to the same place, regardless of their location within the universe.
(a function of charge & discharge)
IN THE 'END' ANALYSIS > When it comes to something with no beginning & no end, THERE IS NO MEANING.
I could point out that humans (and animals) are inherently 'selfish', dictated by the will to survive (encoded).
(yes, there odd exceptions)
So, I could say that:
A true & full understanding SYMBIOSIS is the meaning, but in fact, it is just a LEARNING.
(now in a theory)
For a perceivable Universe to exist (that has always existed), there is no beginning OR end.
We could say there is a start & finish, but they join in a moment that is less than a moment called: A BIG BANG.
For big bangs to be an eternal cyclical event, by function, there has to be at least ONE other imperceivable Universe.
(It is impossible for me to say how many 'universes' exist, but the minimum is 2)
*There is no symmetry between 'universes', because that would = zero motion.
Part of the theory is that ALL black holes go to the same place, regardless of their location within the universe.
(a function of charge & discharge)
IN THE 'END' ANALYSIS > When it comes to something with no beginning & no end, THERE IS NO MEANING.
PS.
By ? FLUKE ? the equation also exactly describes the Yin/Yang symbol,
with the 'dots' of Yin/Yang being the X/Y components,
and C = The Circle.
By ? FLUKE ? the equation also exactly describes the Yin/Yang symbol,
with the 'dots' of Yin/Yang being the X/Y components,
and C = The Circle.
"Paradigm shift" was used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book "The structure of Scientific Revolution", suggesting that paradigm shifts occur as a function of revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary changes. (Robert Harley apparently read the book twice, seemingly doubly reinforcing his finding that MQA was a grand "paradigm shift", suggesting that MQA was of grand revolutionary superiority)
Kuhn's book didn't go without criticism, questioned by his peers as to the legitimacy of outcomes being concluded a function of revolutionary, as opposed to evolutionary origins. From what I can remember his work was generally discredited by his peers (those as experts in his field) in the early 90's. It can be argued that Kuhn's work became in contradiction to its own core premises by experts in the field of philosophy, generating a "paradigm shift" counter to "paradigm shift theory". By its own premises the theory turned on itself.
"Paradigm" as suggesting "paradigm shift" from old ideas, doesn't have such grand discontinuity of reason often implied as supremely superior in a broad context, rather nothing more than conventional evolution.
"The Structure of Scientific Revolution" is now in its 4th edition, 6th reprinting. While it did receive criticism, it has nonetheless stood the test of time as influential and widely read. It was also featured in an essay in Nature Journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/484164a
There is a wiki page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions#cite_note-66
There is a wiki page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions#cite_note-66
