Human potentialities.

'There is a great deal of difference between bearing the world within you and being conscious of that piece of knowledge. A madman can produce thoughts that are an echo of Plato and a pios young schoolboy in a theological college ponders on profound mythological connections which occur in the Gnostics or Zoroaster. But he knows nothing of it! While he remains ignorant he is a tree, or a stone, at best an animal. Once however he has the first glimmering of this knowledge he becomes a man.

You do not think of all the bipeds that walk along the street as human beings merely because they walk upright and carry their young nine months! You can see how many of them are fish, sheep, worms or angels, how many are ants, how many are bees! Human potentialities are present in each one of them but only when he realises them, and learns to make them to some extent a conscious part of him can the individual be said to possess them.'

Im loving this book. What are your thoughts on the subject? Im sure i dont need to go into the horrible conditions on some streets while driven into poverty. I meet people daily who drive through life with no idea, no attempts, no regard even for a philosophical meaning to their endevours. Are they, in this sense, immature to the world? You see people living on the street, murders here every day, no effort or care to understand meanings behind their actions. Their needs animalistic, their moral code under developed.. What do you regard them as?

 

I have a bit different approach. While definately human, I wouldn't count myself as "living". Similar symptoms to what you say, just going through life, doing what I'm supposed to, but with no greater idea what to do with myself.

Comparing that to animals makes little sense though

 

"Their needs animalistic, their moral code under developed.. " extrapolate on that?

 

Ahh, but Mee, you understand, you relate the philosophy, you realise and make it a part of yourself! Infact by posting here you offer a significance of understanding into the field! You ask yourself the questions and step out of the fold.

I cannot sit here and pretend to know you. But this really is what seperates you from those who stride through life without pause to think of why.

I was refering to the current youth culture of England (not that this isnt present elsewhere). Despite morality being relevant to the society they grow up in (a lot of it is poverty), i cannot help but see their actions as anything more than a lacking moral code. A group of 5, 16 year olds beats an old man to death because he tells them to get off his drive? A group beat a young deer to death with no motive found? Is it just animalistic? - which is where the first 2 paragraphs come in.

 

Well, in the example that you gave us (youth of England), wouldn't you say that their actions are manifestations of the society that they live in? And aren't specific societies and subcultures just evolutions of the circumstances brought about by previous societies and subcultures? A person isn't just born a bad person. Many aspects would have to culminate in order for them to act a certain way. Society, surroundings, personal outlook, etc. would all have to come together to form a person's end result. While I have no doubt that basic instinct comes to play in the equation, it wouldn't necessarily mean that it is the one root cause of such behavior would it?


What book is this Renatus? Sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it myself?

 

"Human potentialities", as the title reads.

 

I don't really know what comment to add on this really. I despise of the general population and the youth today as most other people do. Nothing to discuss here really... unless someone wishes to throw me a bone.
Just dont make the argument 'oh the good Ol' days were better'.

 

What I don't get is why so many people can convince themselves that pointless killing is a new trend, unique to modern culture.

 

And how is it animalistic in any way? I thought it was kind of our thing

 

I'll let you in on a little secret. The meaning of life is to live. No more and no less. Human beings are animals and we can never hope to transcend nature into something "greater" to believe so is foolishly naive. We humans are a small insignificant blip in the existence of everything. I think its completely fine and natural to question your existence and discussions of morality can be fun. But all I say is try to remain humble in many ways we humans can learn much from our "animalistic" cousins.

I will not comment on this further just throwing my 2 cents in.

 

A serial killer and one that cures AIDs or cancer are equal.

Equally insignificant..

 

Well... Maybe the reason these people don't stop to look at their lives is because they are too busy living it? Maybe they don't need to understand philosophical meanings of the different aspects of their lives because they already know enough to contribute. Maybe those who do not contribute to society are not human either?

 

Yes, ofc, as i said earlier - their actions, are manifestations of the society they live in. We all agree on that. But if you were to take the traditional view of social scientists and understand the evolution of morality, their actions are bought down to nothing more than anything animalistic, my thread, and the quote in this sense - is asking what you would regard those people as?

Is it a lack of self awarness in such an example?

Is the quote right in the sense that without a basis of philosophy in their lives, no meaning, just animal driven needs? Would you really think of those as men?

Its Demian - Hermann Hesse ;D.

 

well, I have tought in that direction many times, and I think it's pretty... well... sad?
altough interesting:yes:

 

Wait till you get a job, family, and pay bills, attend "voluntary" meetings with people you don't know and talk about things you don't want to, job related of course (unless you're lucky to get something you like doing). All I'm saying is that while I as well tend to analyse and question such things, I am in no position to know what they do, to be able to imagine myself in their position. Once I do get in their position (frankly, who is an adult here living in their own or rented flat, catering fully for themselves, etc.? less than 1% of the members, and about 0% of the active group of people), I will see what people I observe regularly saw. Who knows, even I might end up being an empty-headed drone like most people seem. That's another thing - what you see is not always convergent with what it actually is.

About the actions you listed, those are different. Those are triggered by miniscule things that most people don't even consider - lyrics, advertisements, films, technology, literature, class, and peer influence, each member of which is exposed to the above list and much more. So in actuality, there is no one and no two things to blame - it's everything that humanity is. Which is why there doesn't seem to be a cure for it.

I always get a little melancholic when I think about such subjects, which is why I try to mind my own business, live my life the way I see it right, keeping the bad surroundings in front of me as deterrent.

On second reading this post doesn't make much sense.

 

To make a thread about human potentiality and then to limit your arguments under the frame of morality (rather than the frame of achieving immorality) is sort of ironic ---

Morality in any sense we know is based on 'animalistic' motives. Care for young and old, sympathy, reciprocity, friendship -- all were advantageous to the organism and gained ascendence. Similarly -- 'baser' instincts, like sex, violence, greed, pride are necessary for a species to survive and grow.

You can't simply look at an action alone an judge it 'philosophically'. You need to understand the mentality behind them. Youths killing an old man from an instinct -- is different than someone recognizing their repugnance to killing an old man, and then killing an old man anyway to defy their repugnance. Think about Dostoeyevsky's "Crime and Punishment".

Dying for you child can actually be construed as MORE animalistic than a random, anomalous act of violence, because childcare is so closely related to reproduction while an extreme violence actually holds a great deal of needless risk to the perpetrator.

Its funny that your reading "Demian", because I believe at the beginning of the book Demian's friend casually suggests he kills the bully who has been tormenting him. Herman Hesse was largely influence by Nietzsche who believed that "morality was just a special case of immorality" -- and that true philosophical reflection and action would necessarily mean transcending our morality.

To be truly more than "animals" doesn't require necessarily to act altruistically -- but to be able to overcome our natural tendencies i.e. our drives AND moralities.

 

Alright, I'm about to derail this thread into the insane but what are your thoughts about humans becoming so technically advanced that we could say go into completely mechanic or cybernetic bodies. Which surprisingly we are getting closer to each day, computers etc are evolving at a alarming rate.

So the question is, in the far future if you had a chance to say be 100% transfered into an artifical body that would be better than your current one would you do it? and how far would it have to go to remain human? Like how many cybernetic implants would be too much? 5?,10?, 100? how many until it is not human?

 

Technological singularity

 

Well........ hmm I guess you wouldn't technically be human.... That would be cool though.

 

What makes them not human anymore in your opinion, it is because their body is different now? or what? How much different would it have to be to not be considered human?