> "Waldemar Ingdahl wrote:
> Today I' m going to bring up a fellow from Ancient Greece that should
be
discussed more: Aristotle.
I applaude you for the suggestion we should be returning to the "basics"
to
provide a foundation for the future. The world of past great thinkers
are
wholely different than the one we inhabit and could constrain our views
of
the future. However, we should take from them what is useful and
applicable.
> Modern philosophy is quite often about problematizing the values and
the
concepts that are the foundation of the aristotelian thinking. Yep, I
can
read Wittgenstein, but the aristotelian view gives an important question
that I think is quite relevant to transhumanism.
Modern philosophers have been occupied with different types of problems
those of reality and the ramifications of modern society. Plato,
Aristotle,
Socartes were more focused on the problem of man's place in the universe
and
society. In part this was due to the status of philosophy from 1600
onward
as science reduced philosophy's traditional territory. Ethics in a
secular
society was left to religion, then when metaphysics was not considered
legitimate philosophy was left without bearings. Instead of being the
intellectual guiding light of past years, the best it could get was a
supporting role for other fields.
> The question is- what does it mean to "live a good life", and how
should I
act if I wish to achieve it. The question emphazises the possiblities of
philosophy to act as a guide to life. The objective knowledge, not
confusion.
I believe philosophy will again achieve prominance as the world being
reformed in the crucible of the future seeks a new vision, a new sense
of
meaning and place in the great scheme of things of which technology
plays a
fundemental. Just as special effects don't make good movies, technology
and
science in themselves can not provide answers to the big questions. When
scientists and technologists do they are being philosophers.
> 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. These are
very
important things. Someone might ask "excuse me, isn't the concepts of
eudaimonia etc, already present in a way in transhumanism already?". I
would
say: yes indeed there are parallells, since transhumanism has its roots
back
to aristotelianism, especially since aristotelianism focuses on this
physical world instead of a "land of ideas"...............The main
lesson
which the ideologically conscious transhumanist must learn form the
successes of the 19th century liberals, and the 20th century socialists
is
that it was their courage to be visionary which gained them the support
of
the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is
daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote.
I interprete these two statements as somewhat contradictory. One one
hand
stating that Platonism would ruin transhumanism while lauding the
ideological world visions of the liberals and socialists. The latter
sounds
pretty Platonist to me. This does not necessarily present a problem as
the
reason Plato stands shoulder to shoulder with Aristotle is because
neither
of them had all the answers. For the western intellectual tradition,
attention to one or the other waxes or wanes with the temperment and
tone of
the times, but they none the less come as a pair not to be separated. I
also
believe we should also introduce the philosophers of all the world into
the
discussion because Aristotle, Plato or Socarates for that matter account
for
only a part of the globe's intellectural history and Buddha, Lao Tsu,
and
many others are of equal importance and therefore have a great deal to
offer.
> Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a transhumanist
society
once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task
which
challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the
prospects of dynamism are indeed dark............ "Politics is all about
fighting.
I would agree with this since the changes we will be making will become
more
permanent (ie.germ line therapy) we do need to have a better idea of
what we
want before we have to accept what we have. A good start is to develop a
less competitive approach to politics since we are all in this together
and
everyone has something of value to bring to the table.
Robert Wasley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT