On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 12:47:28AM +0200, Waldemar Ingdahl wrote:
> The aristotelian philosophy is an ethics of purposes, that says us
> that there is a goal that every human being wants, or should want to
> achieve. The task of the philosopher is thus to identify this goal,
> and find the best possible means to achieve it.
This is of course why aristotelian and aristotelian-based views immediately clash
with the "PC mindset" as Greg described - they are unashamedly universalistic
(there is a goal that everybody wants), and suggest that the philosopher is an
active social force for this good. The cultural relativism today, while starting
with the correct realisation that other cultures were not necessarily wrong and
inferior to our own (and strengthened by what Brin calls the meme of otherness:
our own culture's desire for and acceptance of the new and different), eventually
developed into a position where no narrative is allowed to have superiority over
another (in that case the proper response is to deconstruct it, which is said to
put it back in its proper place somehow) and universalist claims got a very bad
name. In this mindset the purpose of the intellectual/philosopher is rather to
deconstruct than to construct or instruct.
This points at a real strength for transhumanism: we are willing to do the later
two, and there is a tremendous desire for such things in our society.
> So what is the this highest good i the ethics we are discussing?
> Aristotle answers "eudaimonia". I think that the term is translated
> into "happiness" in English, which isn't the same as pure lust or joy.
> A state of eudaimonia is also closely knit to ACTION, more
> specifically the kind of action that enables man to accomplish his
> nature. What nature? The specifically human, that distinguishes us
> from the animals, is the faculty of reason. To achieve eudaimonia is
> thus to achieve a harmonical fullfilling of the faculty of reason.
Here there are many worthwhile links to humanistic psychology dealing with
self-actualization, Csikszentmihaly's concept of flow, automorphism and practical
optimism, all which seem to embody aspects of eudaimonia.
A transhumanist concept of eudaimonia would hence have to incorporate a
transhumanist concept of what is the specifically (trans)human nature. This is
one of the things I believe we need to really work on: at present there are no
good visions of human nature that both fit the humanistic vision of humans and
the scientific advances of the the last 200 years. This lack is really noticeable
in the debate, and when I encounter attempts to reconcile them (e.g. how
neuroscience and free will could co-exist) the results are often pretty silly.
But given our ambitions and interest in being a third culture, I think we not
only need to do it but can do it too.
> The link between happiness and action can be expressed as happiness in
> an active life in accordance to virtue. Virtue are the habits that
> make men able to accomplish certain deeds, because become just by
> acting justly, courageous by acting courageously. Morality (and
> philosophy) is to give a guide for real life.
I think the ability to modify habits is one of the building blocks of a
transhumanist lifestyle. How do we think we can live for centuries if we can't
even control our eating properly? (and technology is not a real solution, because
then you need to create the habit of using the technology. Like most exercise
machines sold on the shopping channel, even life extension treatments often end
up stored safely away under the bed unless combined with the building of a habit
of use). Expressed in an Aristotelian way this would be the building of virtue:
transhumanism is based on becoming more virtuous.
Transhumanist virtues might not exactly correspond to the traditional ones, or we
might even introduce new ones. For example, the proper balance between long-range
investments and short-range exploitation is hard to strike when planning one's
future, but it still necessary. This would be a transhumanist virtue, the proper
balance between the far future and the direct. Many others are possible.
> As you can see, there are som differences between a platonic and
> aristotelian view. And thus it is important to see that an enmeshing
> of Plato into the transhumanist tradition will only damage it.
In what ways do you think Plato is insinuating himself into transhumanism?
> I also think that the thomist tradition of alter years (for instance
> Douglas Rasmussen' s and Douglas Den Uyl' s works) is important. That
> is why I think that liberalism is important, as a meta- ideology, as a
> frame in which transhumanism can act since it bring on a society where
> people are given the possibility and the freedom to use their faculty
> of reason. In that society transhumanism is protected, given the
> possibility to develop itself, while not enforcing itself on someone.
Also, that meta-ideology gives a ready answer to those critics who fear that a
transhumanist world would impose change onto them. In a liberal society there is
room for both. Sure, this meta-ideological answer doesn't solve all the problems
and will unfortunately not convince many people that are steeped in the idea that
all ideologies always try to encompass all of society and all people in it (this
is another reason for the fear of universalism). But then again, the Amish are
doing well these days despite that they share the same continent with Silicon
Valley.
> "Politics is all about fighting. A mouse can roar, but it only sounds
> like squeaking to a cat! A cat can roar, but it only sounds like
> meowing to a lion. The ultimate goal is to become a lion."
To be what you want to be: isn't this the essence of being human?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT