progress and freedom

Post Reply New Topic

Freedom is necessary for progress, to progress new ideas. Yet, too much freedom is bad. Freedom must be balanced with intellectual and secular moral responsibility or freedom will turn on itself. History has proven this over and over again.
For a society to truely progress so that humans may some day evolve to where they can attain humanity's life long goal of a better world, without hunger, poverty, sickness, war, etc., we MUST come to a common understanding of the facts (logical deduction) so we can form sensible and accurate ideas to how to tackle our problems. We must begin by realising we do not currently live in this utopian society that humans have yearned for (and because of this we might sometimes HAVE to take aggressive or selfish stances as a society to survive, but the goal should be to make it to where one day we'd never have to), in fact at this stage such a society would only be possible if it were composed of nothing but fully conscious free thinkers.
But when society is allowed to deny proven facts, they are a hinderance to progress. When people are allowed to push agendas (even by something as simple as voting) where their opinions are based off of fear and/or hatred, they are a hinderance to progress. Currently both the right and left wings are baggage, enemies of progress. Their emotions and biases dictate their opinions and cloud their logic (universal facts of deductible logic know no labels or biases). Their stances on issues will always further the goals of large corporations, and harm the status of the people.
As i stated, I think a truely progressive society can only be possible if the society is composed of nothing but free thinking, conscious, fact-oriented, non-bias, open minded individuals who have control over their emotions enough not to allow them to cloud their judgement. Because such a society would have to come to a common understanding of those facts to be truely progressive. Halucaust deniers and religious people and PC fanatics are examples of what would constitute baggage.

Last edited by snake321 on 16 Nov 2007, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Holocaust deniers are baggage. But I wouldn't put all religious people in that category. Some people dedicate themselves to a meaningful life out of religious conviction. It's only the religious crazies that are a problem as I see it.

we have FUBARed this planet.

in this situation... i call chinese stoplight ftw!

Yeah but there goes the problem. Some of them aren't too fanatic about their religion, but as long as it is around other people will use it fanatically. Literal interpretation of religions has already been proven wrong. And this lie might often be the basis for hiding truths, new discoveries that go counter to the lie (religion). These denied new discoveries could be used to help hundreds or possibly thousands of people who are struggling with hunger, illness, oppression, or any number of things.

Last edited by snake321 on 16 Nov 2007, 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who says that is my goal?

The only way to commonly understand the facts is via indoctrination. Nobody understands the facts the same as anyone else due to different processing tendencies, biases, and a number of other forces.

What constitutes proof? Can we objectively and undeniably claim that something is proven without leaving this matter up to some subjective human judgment on what constitutes acceptable proof? If not then do we not leave the door open for many people to claim that something has been "proven"?

Everybody has an agenda. Nobody can be neutral.

And there is a group that doesn't have this occur? It exists from the bottom of high school dropouts to the top of Harvard academics working in social sciences. In fact, human beings at a more fundamental level really cannot escape bias and emotion, all we do is we serve our biases.

So? We have a human impossibility? Cools.

1. Facts are determined by deductible logic. Nothing is a fact if people can't emotionally deal with a fact. The facts are bigger than any human, or any group of people. The apple was red, not blue, even though you might say red and blue were human inventions, to some degree this is inaccurate because no matter what we call the color of the apple it is red (or whatever word a particular language uses for red), we designated that color red. It is the same color as our blood, red.
2. People use genetics as an excuse, and make no effort to see past it. It's the popular crutch for ignorance. People DO have the conscious ability to see past this, but they choose not to. Yes, to some degree we all have that inner animal, but the defining factor is how well we can control that inner animal and keep it at bay. This is only impossible because we live in a society where the majority are too weak to challenge their inner animal.

AG, you'r missing the whole morality concept too, and how it ties into logic. If you screw someone else over, they are going to retaliate (and when they do, then you become a victim, reguardless of what you initially got from screwing that person over in the end you paid). Lets say there are over 5 thousands cases of this going on, it's going to stir up drama and cause a lot of suffering.

Point being AG, you glorify greed and selfishness, those are the 2 reasons why our world is in the shape that it is in. Large corporations taking over, taking away the rights of the individuals. How does it benefit you to be a slave?

Oh, also, a fact is a fact when there is no way to argue it on logical grounds free of emotional bias. Creation science is not proof, because they start with the answers and look for the questions, rather than starting with the questions and looking for the answers. They will ignore a book's worth of evidence that disproves god only to find some minute detail that they can construe into supporting there being a god. All their views on evolution are pure emotion, no logic..... Whereas if real scientists had managed to find evidence of a god, they'd admit it, but a creation scientist will never admit it if they proved a god did not exist.

Well, yes, but there are things where there can be disagreements and debates over what is factually true on an issue or what isn't due to a lack of data. This means that facts are not necessarily something to be seen as absolute. If somebody states that the apple is blue and a large percent of people begin to say it is blue and we lose the apple, then what do we look back to?

Hmm? I say nothing about genetics because such an argument is not the direction I tend to go. I also don't think that this "inner animal" struggle that you see is really my point unless you are re-expressing it in your terminology that I tend not to agree with.

Um.... that has nothing to do with morality; that is merely an argument of enlightened self-interest which presupposes a moral value of egoism. Not only that but people do not always have the ability to retaliate, it is true that if you are going to screw somebody over then you have to remove them from the group that could attack you.

Actually I don't think that there is the conflict you see. I would argue from a Milton Friedman clip. The clip is about 2.5 minutes long. One thing is that I disagree with you on the economic situation that we deal with, and another thing is that my plan is to work for a big company in some white color job where I am paid to think. Not everyone will be slaves and not all slavery is equal.

But what about the arguments on the validity of past events in the bible? What about the explanations for the failure of various economic systems, regimes, and etc? These are by nature arguments on the way things worked and thus all theoretical disputes are arguments on facts. The fact of the matter is that emotional bias creeps into everything we think, including the facts we learn, the theories built upon those facts we supposedly learn, and all based upon an emotional world view. Technically, nothing can disprove a god and thus the existence or non-existence of a god is beyond knowledge and ends up in factual disputes. Facts are disputed with great frequency in an average argument, especially the more radical these arguments are such as disputes on 9/11 or other things.

Ok AG, so your saying you want to be one of the people who does the enslaving? Well even then, your still a slave yourself...... No matter your status position, if you live in a dictatorial society and you disagree with the regime, they will punish you very brutally.

AG, you've got a very confusing way of wording things. Could you talk in simpler terms? I get confused with other peoples' wordings quite often...... (especially when talking about econimics). It's odd how I can decipher Nieztche and Zen Buddhism but I can't decipher the average person's words when they talk big like this..... Could you talk in more simple, blunt, to-the-point terms?

Is there any position in which man is not a slave in some form or fashion? All you speak of is a situation in which certain options are made very unfavorable but really my conditions are always controlled by others.

Where do you want me to clarify things?

This whole post, break it down into smaller, more direct words please.

The first response said that lacking information creates a problem in determining what is factually true. Many facts, such as in your apple example: may end up not being known or actually being known by a small group. Thus most people may not know the truth.

My second response is that I did not appeal simply to genetics but rather to human limitations and that these may have some things in common, but the ideas are not necessarily compatible without explanation.

My 3rd response is that morality has nothing to do with logic. Morality is a premise, logic is the ability to follow premises. I also claim that the assumption of retaliation is not always warranted.

My 4th response is that I disagree with your idea that greed and selfishness are things that can really be fought in the manner you want, but rather are forces in all societies that can promote some idea of success. I also argue that I will not truly be a slave because of my greater value as a freer servant.

My final argument is that there are disputes over facts and on some level that everything we argue about is on factuality and that emotions are unavoidable in anything. I also argue that in many arguments facts are disputed.

Doesn't make slavery right though.