OK, the books might have been a good manual for that civilization, but we are no longer an agrarian society so it is false from a modern perspective. So I am failing to understand how following xmas in 2019 would be a healthy spiritual experience?
-
-
Replying to @HarryBr55145341
When we lost religion, we realized that rationalism is fascist and cannot carry us. We became romantic, which means we replaced God with Love, but the ship falls apart. The question of how to solve the crisis of meaning without bringing back religion is still unresolved.
8 replies 4 retweets 18 likes -
-
Replying to @RealtimeAI @HarryBr55145341
Yes. Humanism does not follow from rationalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HarryBr55145341
You consider the moral valences of well-being and suffering to be outside the ability of rationalism to describe, capture, take-account-of ?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @HarryBr55145341
If you are under threat from the outside (such as entropy or Stalin), forcing you to optimize for efficiency, in a rational sense, the moral valence of pain is equal to its effect on the performance of the greater whole. Humanism needs additional axioms.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HarryBr55145341
Maybe you mean a more specific set of axioms by the term “rational”. All I mean is the systemic use of reasons and arguments and so on. I don’t see why an implicit premise that, eg, survival > happiness is prima facie or necessarily “rational”.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @HarryBr55145341
Under evolutionary conditions, the system that prevails will be the one that is optimizing for survival, and rationality is (by definition) the best optimization strategy. Once you decide that you are going to stick around, rationality constrains you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @HarryBr55145341
Are you saying that survival is the only rational goal, or that only rationality will reliably lead to survival? I reject the former, accept the latter. But neither case implies that rationalism excludes humanism (depending on how you’re defining that one.
)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @HarryBr55145341
Neither. Nothing leads reliably to survival, but rationality optimizes your chances to reach your goal (by definition). And you maximize your probability of existing by optimizing for it (if you don't exist we don't need to worry about you).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Our body does not treat its cells in a humanistic way. China does not treat its citizens in a humanistic way. Humanism requires additional constraints. Can we prove that these constraints maximize probability of survival, or come for free? If not, will humanism be outcompeted?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @HarryBr55145341
Well it’s not about proving, of course. But I can think of *reasons* why humanism might outcompete totalitarianism. Society’s largest gains in strength tend to come from ideas originating in individual creative human minds.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @HarryBr55145341
That's a false dichotomy. Totalitarian societies can run insulated creative think tanks and controlled A/B experiments on social organization too. It does not follow that the whole society should be a creative think tank. Our own preference may bias us.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.